Sacramento County Grand Jury ... final report

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter from the Grand Jury Foreperson iii
Grand Jurors – 2001 – 2002 v
History
History of the Grand Jury 1
Reports and Investigations
Adult Protective Services
What is the Future of our Elder
and Dependent Adults? 10
Bureau of Family Support 18
Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental
Health Services 22
The Directed Brokerage Program of the
Sacramento County Employees’
Retirement System 28
Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment
Programs in Sacramento County 34
Elk Grove Unified School District Fails
Fiduciary Responsibilities 38
Encroaching Land Use Imperils Sacramento’s
Airport System 42
Folsom Sewage Spills Continue 52
Status of Volunteer Firefighters Serving as
Members of the Board of Directors of
The Wilton Fire Protection District 56
Transportation of Prisoners for Non- Emergency
Medical Care by California Department of
Corrections 60
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
( CONTINUED)
Unequal Treatment of Sentenced Female Inmates
in Sacramento County 64
Ten- Year Index of Final Reports
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
iii
June 10, 2002
The Honorable Richard K. Park
Advisor Judge to the Grand Jury
Sacramento Superior Court
720 Ninth Street, Department 39
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Judge Park:
In compliance with Penal Code section 933, the Sacramento County Grand
Jury is pleased to submit to you its 2001- 2002 Final Report.
It has been my honor and privilege to serve as Foreperson of the Grand Jury.
This Final Report is the cumulative result of the nineteen member Grand Jury
working countless hours researching, investigating, interviewing and
deliberating over a number of issues.
On behalf of my colleagues, we are grateful for the sincere dedication of all
the public officials with whom we spoke. We were met with a high level of
cooperation and openness by the staff, directors, and public officials with
whom we came in contact. They were readily available, forthright in
providing information, and generous in contributing their time to inform jurors
about programs, policies and procedures.
Concerned members of the public brought many of the issues to our attention.
Others were initiated by the Jury as a result of our observations during tours of
various governmental facilities or from other sources. Although every
complaint submitted to the Grand Jury received our consideration, many did
not result in formal action, so much of the efforts of the Jury is not reflected in
this report.
The Jury wishes to express its sincere appreciation to you, Judge Park, for the
superior advice and support you provided as our Advisor Judge. We are also
indebted to the assistance and advice of County Counsel, and the Department
of Justice Attorney General’s Office.
Julie M. Fong, Foreperson
Robert R. Argo
Olivia D. Balcao
Rhea A. Brunner
Donald E. Bunn
Vicki E. Cody
Dave Cox
Merritt Davis
Aida Q. de la Vega
Barry T. Heilman
Eleanor C. Hoffman
A. Michael Koewler
Charles R. Lindholm
Marshall M. Mitche ll
James M. Moose, Jr.
Robert J. Storelli
Margaret Troffey
Cosme A. Valdez
Jimmie E. Ward
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
iv
Finally, special thanks go to Michelle Park, Executive Secretary for the Grand Jury, for her
invaluable knowledge, professionalism and her outstanding work on our behalf.
The members of the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury are honored to have served our community and hope
our efforts are a positive contribution towards better government.
Sincerely,
JULIE FONG, Foreperson
2001- 2002 Sacramento County Grand Jury
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
v
2001- 2002 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY
Robert R. Argo
Olivia D. Balcao
Rhea Brunner
Donald E. Bunn
Vicki Cody
Dave Cox
Merritt L. Davis
Aida Q. de la Vega
Julie M. Fong, Foreperson
Barry T. Heilman
Eleanor C. Hoffman
A. Michael Koewler
Charles R. Lindholm
Marshall M. Mitchell
James M. Moose, Jr.
Robert J. Storelli
Margaret Troffey
Cosme A. Valdez
Jimmie E. Ward
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
HISTORY
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
1
HISTORY OF THE
GRAND JURY
The grand jury is the means by which people who volunteer from every walk of
life work within the judicial system to ensure that the institutions of government are
responsive and fair to those who are governed. It also protects minority opinions or
unpopular causes from persecution or prosecution. The grand jury concept has a long
history and has adapted throughout the centuries to meet the needs and conditions of each
time period.
Grand juries perform two primary roles. One is to evaluate the validity of charges
being brought by a prosecutor, if the charges are not reviewed by a judge, to ensure that
they are not frivolous or ungrounded. The other is to inquire into, and investigate if
necessary, the operations of local government agencies and officials to ensure that
activities are valid and services are efficiently and legally provided. In both instances,
the secrecy of the grand jury’s deliberations is a common thread that ensures independent
and objective consideration of facts brought before it.
History of the Grand Jury: Before American Development
Some historians believe that the earliest versions of the grand jury existed in
Athens, where the Greeks used citizen groups to develop accusations. Others find traces
of the concept in all the Teutonic peoples, including early Anglo- Saxons. For example,
the concept was employed in the early Scandinavian countries. Evidence also exists that
the early French developed the “ King’s Audit” involving citizens who were sworn and
required to provide fiscal information related to the operation of the kingdom.
However, most commentators believe that the grand jury arose as an institution in
England. In the first millennium, English individuals prosecuted criminals, with the king
personally involved in the system. Under the Doom Law of Anglo- Saxon King
Aethelred ( 980- 1016), a dozen landowners were appointed to investigate alleged crimes.
In 1166, King Henry II established a system of local informers ( twelve men from every
one hundred) to identify those who were “ suspected of” various crimes. If the suspects
survived their “ trials by ordeal”, they paid fines to the King. However, the “ informers”
were fined if they failed to indict any suspect, or even enough suspects. After 1188, they
became tax collectors as well, and after the reign of Henry III, they were charged with
looking into the condition and maintenance of public works.
The Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215, did not mention the grand jury
specifically, but did establish various procedures to ensure fairness in the dispensation of
justice. Thereafter, until the mid- 1300’ s, the 12- man juries served both to present
indictments and also to rule on the validity of charges. During Edward III’s reign, from
1312- 1377, the 12 individuals were replaced by 24 knights, called “ le grande inquest”,
and the 12 became a “ petit jury” responsible only for declaring innocent or guilty
verdicts.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
2
Ultimately, in the 1600’ s, the English grand jury developed as a process to
determine whether there was probable cause to believe that an accused individual was
guilty of a crime. Grand juries reached their English pinnacle of citizen protectors in
1681, when they refused to indict enemies of King Charles II for alleged crimes.
( Ironically, English laws establishing grand juries were repealed in 1933.)
History of the Grand Jury: Early American Development
The use of juries in earliest colonial history was limited. In the New Haven
colony, for example, religious beliefs resulted in the residents eliminating trial by jury
because there was no reference to juries in the laws of Moses. However, procedures
similar to grand juries were used to hear criminal charges of larceny ( Boston, 1644),
holding a disorderly meeting ( Plymouth, 1651), and witchcraft ( Pennsylvania, 1683).
In the early 1600’ s, colonial representatives of the English monarchs made laws
and prosecuted violators. The first grand juries recommended civil charges against those
crown agents, thus establishing themselves as representatives of the governed, similar to
grand juries today. The first grand juries also looked into government misconduct or
neglect. For exa mple, the first colonial grand jury, established in Massachusetts in 1635,
“ presented” town officials for neglecting to repair stocks, as well as considering cases of
murder, robbery and spousal abuse.
Other early grand juries performed a variety of administrative functions, including
audits of county funds ( New Jersey), inspections of public buildings ( Carolinas), and
review of taxes and public works ( Virginia). Virginia grand juries also investigated
whether each family planted two acres of corn per person.
In the Colonies, grand juries were considering criminal accusations and
investigating government officials and activities, but with a populist view. Grand jurors
included popular leaders such as Paul Revere and John Hancock’s brother. These grand
juries played a critical role in the pre- Revolutionary period: for example, three grand
juries refused to indict John Peter Zenger, whose newspaper criticized the royal
governor’s actions in New York ( he ultimately was prosecuted by the provincial attorney,
defended by Alexander Hamilton, and acquitted). Grand juries also denounced arbitrary
royal intrusions on citizens’ rights, refused to indict the leaders against the Stamp Act of
1765, and refused to bring libel charges against the editors of the Boston Gazette in 1766.
After the Revolutionary War ended, the new federal constitution did not include a
grand jury. Early American leaders such as John Hancock and James Madison objected.
Thereafter, the grand jury was included in the Bill of Rights, as part of the Fifth
Amendment, which states, “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia whe n in actual service in time of war
or public danger…”
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
3
From then, until today, the federal grand jury remains an integral part of the
justice system, used by federal prosecutors for a variety of potential crimes. In 1801, a
federal grand jury indicted Colonel Aaron Burr for treason. Most recently, federal grand
juries considered allegations related to the Oklahoma City and New York Trade Center
bombings, President Clinton’s conduct both before and during his term of office, and the
recent claims of wrong- doing by former California Insurance Commissioner Chuck
Quackenbush and some associates.
History of the Grand Jury: Adaptation by the States
As the various states were admitted to the Union and adopted their legal and
operating procedures, almost every one initially included some reliance on grand juries
for either ( or both) review of criminal indictments or inquiries into government activities.
Some states’ grand juries were very active in administrative affairs, even including
recommending new laws. Others carried out investigations of government officials; one
Tennessee grand jury indicted the entire state court of appeals and another opposed a
judge’s reappointment on the grounds of “ mental imbecility”.
Throughout this state- by- state development, the underlying concept remained the
same: ordinary citizens, neighbors, and others on grand juries were a necessary part of
government to ensure that public prosecutors were not swayed by personal or political
prejudices, and that government officials efficiently and effectively performed their jobs.
Since the mid- 1800’ s, grand juries have been criticized as ineffective or out- of-date
by a number of reformers because they were slow, lacked expertise, and on other
grounds. Others criticized the “ star chamber” atmosphere of secret hearings without
customary due process rights. However, these complaints were offset by effective grand
jury investigations, including those of the Boss Tweed ring in New York City ( 1871) and
racketeering charges brought by a grand jury assisted by Thomas Dewey in the 1930’ s.
Since the nineteenth century, various minor and major changes have been made in grand
jury selection, procedures, and qualifications, often resulting in fairer and more efficient
jury operations.
Today, all states except Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia, may use grand juries to indict and begin criminal trials. Twenty- three states
and the District of Columbia require that grand jury indictments be used for certain—
more serious— crimes. California and twenty- four other states make use of grand jury
indictments optional. All states and the District of Columbia use grand juries for
investigative purposes.
The Grand Jury’s Role in Criminal Prosecutions
Although the American grand jury originally was conceived as a protector of
ordinary citizens by other ordinary citizens, the fairness of its criminal operations has
been questioned by various commentators and judges. U. S. Supreme Court Justice
William Douglas stated, “ It is, indeed, common knowledge that the Grand Jury, having
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
4
been conceived as a bulwark between the citizen and the Government, is now a tool of
the Executive.” Some even have referred to it as a “ rubber stamp” for prosecutors.
In the criminal system, the California constitution and laws provide that felony
prosecutions are initiated only after a determination that there is “ probable cause” to
believe that specific individuals committed specific crimes. This is done either by an
“ information” presented for examination and approval by a judge, or by indictment after
a grand jury hearing and vote. In either case, the purpose of the objective review is to
prevent overzealous prosecutors from unjustified, groundless, or unfair prosecutions
when “ probable cause” does not exist.
The grand jury operates without providing many fundamental rights common in
court hearings and trials. For example, the defendant has neither the right to present
evidence to the grand jury or cross- examine the witnesses against him or her. Only the
prosecutor may present evidence, and the defendant has no right to counsel, even if
required to testify. Even judges generally are excluded, leaving the grand jurors to rely
on the prosecutor for all information. One early study indicated that 95% of all cases
brought to the grand jury resulted in indictments, raising questions about the value of this
review because the grand jury is not able to adequately evaluate the evidence presented
only by the district attorney.
The Grand Jury’s Role in Civil Investigations
The role of the grand jury in civil investigations presents an interesting twist: the
original ( English) grand juries served to aid the government in finding and prosecuting
private citizens’ misdeeds; now, these juries investigate and accuse public figures,
defending individual citizens’ rights and expectations. Grand juries, both federal and
state, may investigate criminal activity or non- criminal activities. In California, for
example, the grand jury can investigate any activity by a public official ( other than a
judge) which violates a state law, and many other activities, as long as they occur within
the county of the grand jury.
State grand juries— but not federal grand juries— can investigate any non- criminal
activity and report and make recommendations based on the results of the investigation.
These investigations commonly include reviewing the operation and condition of jails
and prisons, investigating the conduct of local public officials, and other similar matters
of public health, safety, and welfare. The results of these investigations may be criminal
charges, recommendations for new laws, or merely reports to the public identifying
problems but proposing no specific solutions.
California Grand Juries: An Overview
Grand Juries are impaneled in every county in California. Article I, § 23 of the California
Constitution states: “ a grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in
each county.” Depending on a county’s population, a specified number of citizens
ranging from 11 to 23 in each of California’s 58 counties are empowered to investigate
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
5
and report on various activities of county and city government. The rules governing the
makeup, organization, powers and duties of grand juries in California are found in the
California Penal Code § 888- 939. Recent changes in the Penal Code ( § 904.6, 1991)
permit any county to have an additional grand jury at the discretion of the presiding judge
of the superior court.
The statutes permit some variation in the manner and time of selection of jurors and
require only that the term of service be for one year and coincide with the County’s fiscal
year. Qualifications for grand jurors are outlined in Penal Code § 893. This section
requires the prospective grand juror be at least 18 years old, in possession of their natural
faculties and have sufficient knowledge of the English language. In Sacramento County,
each grand jury begins its term July 1 and ends its service June 30 of the following year.
Throughout the State, prospective grand jurors in each county are chosen through a
lengthy process that includes application, screening by the jury commissioner from
Department of Motor Vehicle Records and nomination of interested persons by Superior
Court Judges. A thorough background check is made on all interested persons and list of
qualified candidates is submitted to the judges for review and approval. Since some
members of the existing grand jury may be carried over for a second term, the number of
names drawn will equal those needed to provide a grand jury of 19 members. ( The law
allows for a grand jury of 23 in counties with greater than a four million population and
for 11 members in counties with less than 20,000 population. ( Penal Code § 888.2))
It has been the practice in many counties to advertise widely and to encourage many
people to apply for the grand jury. Because grand jury service requires the devotion and
commitment to spend 20 hours per week or more for only a token payment, it is desirable
for grand jurors to have an interest in community affairs and be open- minded with a true
concern for the views of others. Grand jurors also should posses some investigative skills
and be able to take good notes and write and type reports. A good knowledge of the
functions and responsibilities of city and county government is also helpful.
California Grand Juries: Investigation of Complaints and Accusations
The grand jury also is likely to receive a number of citizen complaints, many of which
involve operations of county or city agencies or special districts. Whether the complaint
is civil or criminal, rules of secrecy apply, and during the course of its investigation, the
grand jury may not divulge the subject or methods of inquiry. The subject of the
investigation and the methods of inquiry are only revealed when the final report is
published. Privileged or confidential material is not included in the grand jury reports.
Thus the names of those questioned and facts that might lead to the identity of a person
who provided information to the grand jury are not released.
§ 919( c) of the Penal Code requires the grand jury to inquire into the willful or corrupt
misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county. Where
misconduct is found, the grand jury may file an accusation leading to a trial. If the official
is convicted, the person is thereby removed from office. Very few of these accusations
are filed. Frequently, if there is misconduct in office, it is of a criminal nature, and an
indictment rather than an accusation would be issued. It is also possible that an official
would resign rather than face an accusation.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
6
The grand jury may file an accusatory pleading against a corporation doing business in its
county of jurisdiction ( Penal Code § 892).
In a report published by the California Grand Jurors Association, misconduct in office
could include any of the following:
Nonfeasance:
( 1) The failure to act where duty requires an act; or
( 2) Neglect or refusal, without sufficient cause or excuse, to do that which is the
officer's legal duty to do, whether willfully or through malice; or
( 3) Willful neglect of duty.
Misfeasance:
( 1) The improper or doing of an act that a person might lawfully do; or
( 2) The performance of a duty or act that one ought to do or has a right to do, but in a
manner such as to infringe upon the rights of others.
Malfeasance:
( 1) The performance of an act that is positively unlawful or wrong; or
( 2) The performance of a wrongful act that the person has no legal right to do.
Duties of the Grand Jury: Government Watchdog
In California today, provisions of the Penal Code to require the grand jury:
( 1) Investigate and report on the accounts, records, operations, and functions of
district, city and county government and public officials ( Penal Code § 925 &
925a); It may also inquire into the affairs of joint powers agencies located in the
county.
( 2) Inquire into the condition and management of all correctional facilities within the
county ( Penal Code § 919( b)).
The grand jury may investigate or inquire into county matters of civil concern, such as
the needs of county officers, including the abolition or creation of offices and the
equipment for, or the method or system of performing the duties of the several offices.
Powers permitted to the grand jury include:
( 1) free access, at reasonable times, to public prisons;
( 2) the right to examine all public records within the county;
( 3) the right to examine books and records of ( a) any incorporated city, or joint
powers agency located in the county; ( b) certain redevelopment agencies and
housing authorities; ( c) special- purpose assessing or taxing districts wholly or
partly within the county; & ( d) non- profit corporations established by or operated
on behalf of a public entity;
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
7
( 4) the authority to investigate and report on operations and methods of performing
duties of any such city, county, or joint powers agency and to make
recommendations as deemed proper;
( 5) the ability, with permission of the Superior Court, to hire experts such as auditors
and accountants;
( 6) the right to inquire into the sale, transfer and ownership of lands which might or
should escheat to the state.
Note: The grand jury has no authority to investigate the courts or the acts or
omissions of any judge or judicial employee.
Duties of the Grand Jury: Criminal Indictments
The California Constitution permits criminal trial on the basis of indictment by a grand
jury or by information after the district attorney recommends prosecution and a judge
agrees that facts exist which warrant prosecution. In addition, under § 917 of the Penal
Code, " the grand jury may inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the
county, and present them to the court by indictment." In actual practice, grand juries
seldom initiate suc h inquiries; rather, such offenses are generally brought to the grand
jury by the district attorney, who asks for and generally receives an indictment, upon
presentation of adequate facts.
According to the California Grand jurors Association, the district attorney much more
frequently bypasses the grand jury and uses the process known as a preliminary hearing.
A 1954 survey of California district attorneys listed the following factors as influential in
the decision to seek a grand jury indictment rather tha n using the preliminary hearing: ( 1)
high public interest in the case; ( 2) the fact that a preliminary hearing would take more
time than a grand jury hearing; ( 3) the necessity for calling children or witnesses who
would be subject to cross- examination at a preliminary hearing; ( 4) the existence of a
weak or doubtful case which the district attorney wishes to test; ( 5) cases involving
malfeasance in office; and ( 6) the fact that witnesses are in a state prison.
A more recent study adds the following reasons for using the grand jury: ( 1) cases where
the defendant cannot be located and the time limit under the statute of limitations is about
to expire, ( 2) where the secrecy of the grand jury may allow defendants to be charged and
taken into custody before they can pose potential danger to a witness's safety or flee from
the jurisdiction, ( 3) the need to protect the identity of undercover agents, and ( 4) the
ability to test a witness before a jury.
From 1978 until 1990, grand juries were seldom used for indictments. A California
Supreme Court ruling required holding preliminary hearings even if grand jury
indictments were obtained. In 1990, a constitutional amendment made significant
alterations in California criminal law and court procedures, including a provis ion that
defendants were not entitled to preliminary hearings if indicted by a grand jury. As noted
above, recent statutes ( Penal Code § 904.6) give district attorneys the option of using
special grand juries chosen from the regular jury pool to handle criminal cases and thus
ensure indictment by those who represent a cross section of the community. Although the
law allows criminal indictments to be brought by a grand jury, in practice, the District
Attorney generally prefers to use the speedier preliminary hearing process.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
8
Grand Jury: Reports
State Law requires that each grand jury submit a final report of its findings and
recommendations to the presiding judge of the Superior Court. In addition to the
mandated reports on financial audits and the conditio n of adult and juvenile detention
facilities, recent Sacramento County grand jury reports have covered such topics as the
Department of Health and Human Services, criminal and juvenile justice agendas, other
municipalities and special districts.
A report, just as an accusation or an indictment, must be approved by at least 12 of the 19
grand jurors ( 15 if it is a 23 member jury). With so many possible investigations and a
term limited to a single year, it is necessary for each grand jury to make hard decisions as
to what it wishes to undertake during the term. Except for mandated duties to report on
the financial condition of the county and on the conditions of county jails, the grand jury
has great discretion in determining its agenda.
Most grand juries divide into committees for conducting investigations and for writing
reports, but there seems to be a wide variation between counties as to the number and
structure of committees; it is up to each grand jury to determine its own method of
operation within the parameters of the law.
Government agencies that are the subject of reports are required by law to respond to
specific grand jury findings and recommendations. However, the grand jury has no
enforcement power, and the agencies are under no legal obligation to carry out the
recommendations. While some recommendations are ignored, others are followed,
particularly those that suggest greater efficiency for operations and that do not require the
expenditure of large sums of money. Grand jury criticisms of public officials and
agencies frequently attract press attention, bringing greater community awareness of what
is happening in public agencies. Many grand jurors believe that public officials tend to be
more accountable when they know an impartial; outside body is looking over their
collective shoulders.
The California Grand Jurors Association ( CGJA) ( www. cgja. org), a statewide
organization of former grand jurors has begun a program of identifying and indexing
grand jury reports in each county with the hope of establishing a state archive of annual
reports. The State Library also maintains an archive of grand jury reports from all
counties. CGJA also monitors and occasionally proposes or endorses proposed laws to
conserve and improve the grand jury as an important institution of local government. It
offers services to those grand juries that may request advice and help in preparing
informational manuals and in providing orientation for incoming jurors. Some members
of the CGJA now provide orientation programs for those counties that request this
service.
While surrounded by secrecy before publication, grand jury reports become public
documents when signed by the grand jury foreman and approved by the grand jury’s
advisory judge. Copies are sent: to all targeted government agencies, to interested
officials, to public and private groups and individuals and to the press. At the end of the
year, bound or loose- leaf copies of all reports are placed in all public libraries.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
9
Copies of recent Sacramento County Grand Jury reports may be found on the Grand
Jury’s website. ( www. sacgrandjury. org) Individuals may request copies from:
Sacramento County Grand Jury
720 9th Street, Room 611
Sacramento, CA 95814
( 916) 874- 7559 ( voice mail)
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
REPORTS
AND
INVESTIGATIONS
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
10
Adult Protective Services
What Is the Future of Our Elder and
Dependent Adults?
Subject of Investigation
Delivery of Adult Protective Services in Sacramento County.
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury received a complaint that Adult Protective Services ( APS) lacked
coordination with local agencies.
Method of Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the Division Manager for Senior and Adult
Services, the Program Manage r for Adult Protective Services, a Sacramento County
Administrative Services officer, employees of local senior services agencies, a former
Sacramento County APS employee and a consultant to local counties. The members also
read the Report on the Sacramento Community System of Protection for Senior and
Dependent Adults, October 2001, issued by the Adult System of Protection Team. They
reviewed the Manual Letter No. APS- 01- 01, effective 10- 29- 01, Adult Protective
Services Program, pages 5- 6, 38 as well as the response letters, 1- 15- 02 and 4- 26- 02 from
the Division Manager for Senior and Adult Services. They also reviewed the letter to the
Grand Jury from the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS)
dated 5- 2- 01.
Background
Sacramento County Adult Protective Services, Division of Senior and Adult Services, is
the county agency responsible for carrying out the mandates in Section 15763.3( c) and
other sections of the Welfare and Institutions Code. This Section states in part that a
county shall provide case management services to elders and dependent adults who are
determined to be in need of adult protective services for the purpose of bringing about
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
11
changes in their lives and to provide a safety net to enable them to protect themselves in
the future. These services are intended for both the elderly and dependent adults ( 18- 64
years of age), and specifically include basic protections such as food, emergency shelters,
home protective care, and other services that may be of value on a case by case basis.
Statistics released by the Sacramento Community Services Planning Council indicate that
since 1990, in Sacramento County, the portion of the population ages 65 to 84 has
increased 18.4%, from 100,746 persons in 1990 to 119,283 persons in 2000. The portion
of the population age 85 and older has increased dramatically by 55.8%, from 9,534
persons in 1990 to 14,854 persons in 2000. This growth trend is dramatically continuing
locally and nationally.
From the late 1980s to the early 1990s the Adult Protective Services program in this
County suffered extreme budget cuts, that reduced the local services to a skeletal
structure. Prior to these budget cuts Adult Protective Services was a recognized leader in
its approach to the issue of elder and dependent adult abuse. Services remained at a
minimum until 1998 when Senate Bill 2199 addressing elder and dependent adult abuse
was enacted into law. This bill amended the State Welfare and Institutions Code by
expanding the definition of mandated reporters and included abandonment, isolation,
financial abuse, and neglect as reportable offenses.
In response to SB 2199, the Adult and Aging Commission's Oversight Committee
conducted a public forum, resulting in the formation of an Adult System of Protection
Team. This Team spent two years ( 1999- 2001) evaluating the current system and
identifying areas that needed improvement to guarantee seniors and dependent adults
adequate protection from neglect and abuse. The Team identified several themes needing
attention, including case management, direct service, and followup, and released a final
report in October 2001. One of the key recommendations in the report asked the county
Board of Supervisors to direct the Department of Health and Human Services to develop
a budget proposal to fund and establish a case management unit for FY 2002. APS
confirmed that case management services are currently not being provided nor is there a
plan to implement case management in FY 2002- 2003. Grand Jurors concur with the
frustration expressed by professionals interviewed during the investigation. Two years of
studying the problems with a strong confirmation that case management is necessary only
to be followed by yet another year of study rather than actual implementation of services
is a waste of resources.
Concurrent with the beginning of this study, Adult and Senior Services initiated a
Department of Health and Human Services/ District Attorney Elder Abuse Prevention
media campaign. According to the Adult and Senior Services Division, a significant
increase in referrals occurred as a result of the media campaign as well as the increase in
reporting requirements in SB 2199
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
12
Facts
The original complaint to the Grand Jury stated there was a lack of coordination between
APS and other agencies. However, during this investigation what became most evident
was the need for more enhanced services to reduce the number of cases being reopened.
According to interviews with the administration of Adult and Senior Services, APS stated
their interpretation of the language of new state regulations clearly provides that, " APS is
not intended to be a long- term, ongoing case management activity...." On the other hand
they expressed the need for case management services, and the reasons for not providing
them were lack of staff and funding. In fact, it was stated that, " any reassignment of
social work staff, to a case management unit, would make it impossible to make a timely
and effective response to incoming reports of abuse…"
The Grand Jury learned that APS placed a cap of 90 consecutive days of intervention
with a client, at which time the case is closed whether the case is stabilized or not.
Professionals interviewed agreed that to arbitrarily set a cap of 90 days often denies the
individuals the full opportunity for services that specifically address their situation. It
precludes reassessment and a management plan that can be modified when necessary.
Some cases may require far less than 90 days, and others may require up to 12 months to
stabilize. This conclusion, according to those interviewed, was deemed consistent with
the State's language not to be a long- term, ongoing case management program. Members
of the Grand Jury also found language that does provide for " time- limited" case
management within the scope of service.
However, in interviews, APS admitted, " it is typical that any client with complex or
resistive problems has his/ her case closed without the problem being significantly solved
and then re- opened due to subsequent crisis calls.” Statistics provided by APS showed
10,710 cases opened between January 1998 and January 2002 that represented only 7,245
clients, or 27.5% of the clients accounting for 50.1% of case openings. APS reported that
had these cases been effectively resolved through case management services, it would
have resulted in savings of approximately $ 2,700,000 over that four- year period.
Not included in these savings is the significant cost to the County of ancillary services for
the individuals who continually have repeat contact, with expenses incurred through
contact with law enforcement and medical emergencies, in addition to other services.
The statistics, provided to the members of the Grand Jury showing the highest risk cases
by type and number of abuses, indicate that some cases were re- opened up to 14 times
over a four- year period.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
13
Sacramento County Adult Protective Services had an allocation of $ 762,920 in FY
1998/ 1999. By FY 2001/ 2002, APS allocation had been increased to $ 2,413,626. ( See
Budget Table). During this time of an augmented budget, APS has increased staff and
their ability to handle emergency responses, but has not provided enhanced services such
as case management as directed by SB 2199, ( enacted in 1998).
Adult and Senior Services reports that " the APS allocation is dedicated strictly to the
APS Program. The CSBG ( County Services Block Grant) allocation includes funding for
Information and Referral, Out- of- Home Care Services for Adults, and optional programs
and activities performed in the above categories by Skilled Professional
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
14
Medical Personnel ( SPMP). However, at this time, the Department is using the CSBG
allocation to fund certain activities of the Public Guardian/ Conservator's Office.
It was learned through interviews with other community agencies that there are case
management programs for seniors to whom APS makes referrals when available and
appropriate. Grand Jurors also learned of possible additional funding sources APS might
pursue to fund case management services. One such program is MediCal Administrative
Activities ( MAA).
A second funding source is Targeted Case Management ( TCM) which became a covered
MediCal benefit effective January 1, 1995 under the Welfare and Institutions Code,
Section 14132.44. TCM consists of case management services to a specified target
population who need medical, social, educational and other services. TCM was designed
to include documented assessment, service plan development, linkage and consultation,
assistance in accessing service, crisis assistance planning and periodic review for adults
at risk for abuse, neglect, and possible institutionalization.
Adult Protective Services confirmed that it has not pursued Targeted Case Management
funding. It was stated that the Sacramento County Conservator's Office pursues
reimbursement through TCM on a small scale. APS also stated that TCM is only at a
50% reimbursement rate for services, and believes what is currently being done by APS
is more fiscally advantageous. A consultant who works with other counties verified that
TCM could have long- range savings.
It is the position of the County that TCM creates a burden on the social worker and the
DHHS Fiscal Department. Adult and Senior Services reports that an additional staff
person would be required to process the claims. However, the Grand Jury was informed
during interviews that there is a statewide consortium comprised of county fiscal persons,
and that Sacramento County already has a TCM coordinator position. APS could not
substantiate if this position is still active and what duties are involved.
Persons with expertise in TCM validated the additional reporting requirement by the
social worker because specific documentation is necessary to obtain reimbursement. The
documentation would require training and/ or specific software. There are a number of
public and private agencies located locally and nationally that use various forms of
software for this purpose. Persons with expertise in TCM indicate that the use of TCM
software actually minimizes the time a worker spends on documentation, and the
software also ensures reimbursement through this proper documentation.
The Grand Jury did not find that Sacramento County Adult Protective Services lacked
coordination with local agencies. The Grand Jury did determine that APS could expand
on its coordination more effectively. To the credit of Sacramento County Adult and
Senior Services, it had established a multidisciplinary team ( MDT) long before it was
mandated in Senate Bill 2199. This was in effect during the years before the major
budget cuts. APS continued to support and maintain the need for a forum to present
difficult cases and coordinate with other agencies, even when staffing, money, and
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
15
options were very limited. It has assisted in reaching positive resolution for many of
these cases. APS continues to chair this type of forum and has enjoyed increased
participation from a number of community agencies. Currently, Sacramento County's
MDT meets one time per month for 2 hours.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. During FY 2000/ 2001, with an augmented budget, APS increased its staff
and its ability for emergency response, but has not provided enhanced services such as
case management as required by SB 2199. APS concurs that there is a need for case
management, but attributes its absence to lack of staff and funding.
Recommendation # 1. Sacramento County APS should immediately implement a pilot
program of case management for the identified highest risk cases. APS should
implement case management as specified in SB 2199 and the two- year study.
Finding # 2. APS administrators were unable to provide members of the Grand Jury with
documentation requiring the 90 day cap, and it is unclear whether this is imposed by state
regulations or self- imposed by the County.
Recommendation # 2. Adult Protective Services needs to remove the 90- day cap on the
amount of time a case can remain open.
Finding # 3. Adult Protective Services has not pursued Targeted Case Management
funding. Although TCM provides money at a 50% reimbursement, it is additional
funding separate from their current revenue source.
Recommendation # 3.
a. Adult Protective Services should explore the possibility of additional funding
through Targeted Case Management or MediC al Administrative Assistance.
b. If APS no longer maintains an MAA/ TCM Coordinator, then it would be
advisable for APS to hire a consultant to determine if they qualify for a
coordinator and how best to increase reimbursement for services.
c. APS should consider the purchase of appropriate software to assist in proper
documentation.
Finding # 4. There appears to be a philosophy within APS of using crisis intervention
and quick closure as the primary remedy. If the cases opened from January 1998 through
January 2002, as noted, had been effectively resolved through case management, they
would have resulted in savings of approximately $ 2,700,000 over that four- year period.
The savings would be greater if the impact to other systems, such as emergency rooms,
law enforcement, etc. were considered.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
16
Recommendation # 4. Adult Protective Services should reconfigure its system of
triaging/ prioritizing cases after the initial response in order to better determine the need
for type and length of continued services to reduce re- opening of cases.
Finding # 5. APS workers and staff of other agencies regularly consult on individual
cases for multi- problem individuals which can become time intensive. Sacramento
County's Multidisciplinary Team ( MDT) with its composition of numerous community
agencies, meets one time per month for two hours. Given the number of cases that are
processed through APS, the use of the MDT only once a month is not adequate. The
Grand Jury determined that Adult Protective Services could expand on its coordination
with community agencies, and it could utilize this collaboration and coordination more
effectively through an expanded use of the MDT.
Recommendation # 5.
a. The MDT should meet on a weekly basis to alleviate the burden/ workload of each
individual agency involved in each case by allowing presentation and follow up in
less than 30 days as needed.
b. APS needs to develop continued and expanded collaboration with social service,
health, and criminal justice agencies in order to link clients with necessary services
and supports to more effectively create stability. Beyond the scope of referral, APS
should collaborate on the cases and follow up on the success of the referral.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:
· Director, Department of Health & Human Services
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
17
- blank page -
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
18
Bureau of Family Support
Subject of Investigation
The operations of the Sacramento County Bureau of Family Support.
Reason for Investigation
The Bureau of Family Support has a well- publicized history of being overwhelmed by its
workload. The Grand Jury opened an investigation to determine if there were any
opportunities to improve its efficiency.
Method of Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews with staff of the Bureau of Family
Support and examined written materials provided by the Bureau.
Background
The Bureau of Family Support provides child support enforcement and collection
services for custodial parents ( its clients), and attempts to obtain reimbursement from
non- custodial parents for funds expended by the County. Historically, it has functioned
as a part of the Office of the District Attorney, but on July 1, 2002 it will become a
separate county department. Recent legislation has established the California Department
of Child Support Services and a plan for a state- directed, locally delivered, child support
program to be uniformly administered in all 58 counties.
The Bureau of Family Support provides services to its clients in an environment of
urgency and anxiety. It has done so for several years while maintaining a high caseload
per worker and periods of understaffing. Disagreements frequently arise between the
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
19
Bureau and its clients as to level of service and the appropriateness of priorities. As a
result, clients are frustrated and bureau staff is stressed. So far as the public is concerned,
these conflicting views, to which client advocacy groups contribute, tend to mask true
conditions in the Bureau.
Facts
The Bureau has in the past been overwhelmed by its workload. This has largely been the
result of processes and procedures that relied on “ hardcopy” files, notorious for
generating frustrations and delays when they are “ out” or are misplaced or lost. The
labor intensive nature of maintaining records in this format, and the sheer physical
limitations which it imposes, created a situation in 1994- 1995 which forced the Bureau to
employ temporary workers to do location searches on non- custodial parents, case
evaluations, and case closures as required by federal funding mandates. The Bureau also
relied on a state- approved and funded computer project that ended up having to be
abandoned.
Personnel turnover has exceeded 20%, in part because of the movement of some
employees to the new California Department of Child Support Services. The current
vacancy rate is over 10% of all full time equivalent staff positions, and the understaffing
is critical because it exists in entry- level positions where client contacts and services
occur. Apart from stress on staff and clients, this understaffing inhibits the Bureau’s
ability to locate and recover funds.
In the last several years there have been a number of improvements in processes and
procedures, that have partially offset the Bureau’s continuous understaffing. Despite
these improvements the Bureau had to reduce the time a case can remain open from three
years to two. This is due in part to the need to maintain statistics within approved federal
guidelines. Because of these guidelines, there is no procedure for maintaining cases in a
semi- inactive status. As a result, semi- annual or quarterly asset location checks are not
done.
The Grand Jury learned the Probate Department of the Sacramento Superior Court has no
process or procedure requiring the entry into an electronic database of the personal
identification of individuals who are to obtain funds from probated estates. Such a
requirement would enable the Bureau to locate non- custodial parents and their assets.
Currently, the Bureau must rely on tips from custodial parents to learn of pending
disbursements from probated estates.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
20
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. The public and clients do not appear to understand the scope of client
services offered by the Bureau of Family Support. This causes stress to bureau staff and
inhibits good relations between the Bureau, its clients, and client advocacy groups.
Recommendation # 1. The Board of Supervisors should publish an annual audit of the
Bureau of Family Support. At a minimum, the findings should include scope of service,
waiting periods, unfilled positions, progress in collections, and cases opened and closed.
Finding # 2. The 10% vacancy rate of all full time equivalent staff positions in the
Bureau of Family Support has a substantial negative impact on the Bureau’s operating
objectives, and creates an environment in which staff feels overwhelmed and clients feel
frustrated and unhappy.
Recommendation # 2. The Board of Supervisors should provide for urgent or emergency
funding of staff positions whenever the Bureau’s vacancy rate is over 10% of all full time
equivalent staff positions.
Finding # 3. Closing cases for an inability to locate non- custodial parents after two years
does not allow the fullest opportunity to locate highly mobile absent parents.
Recommendation # 3. The Bureau should negotiate with the California Department of
Child Support Services and other county child support agencies to create a common
category of semi- inactive cases to be kept open for at least three years for location
purposes.
Finding # 4. The availability of a database containing the names and Social Security
numbers of persons to whom probate distributions are made would aid the Bureau in
locating non- custodial parents to collect child support and other obligations.
Recommendation # 4. The Bureau should seek a change in the rules of the Probate
Department of the Sacramento Superior Court to establish such a database. In addition,
the Bureau should undertake an initiative with the California Department of Child
Support Services, other county child support agencies, and revenue agencies, to obtain
legislation requiring the establishment of such databases by probate departments
statewide.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
21
Responses Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002, from:
· Sacramento County Board of Supervisors: Findings and Recommendations
# 1 and 2
· Director, Bureau of Family Support: Findings and Recommendations # 3
and 4
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
22
Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental
Health Services
Subject of Investigation
Mental health services for juveniles processed through the Sacramento County Juvenile
Justice System, with emphasis on Juvenile Hall.
Reason for Investigation
A distinct double standard appears to the Grand Jury to exist when we compare the
treatment of health problems with visible symptoms to mental health problems with no
outwardly visible symptoms. An example of this would be the public outcry that would
result from a high school coach forcing a student with a broken leg to run in a 100- yard
sprint and the equally unreasonable expectation of a student with untreated mental health
problems to “ be normal”.
The Grand Jury for 2000- 2001 published a report addressing the status of mental health
services in the county juvenile justice system. Within that report there were a number of
findings and recommendations. In follow- up to the previous report, the 2001- 2002 Grand
Jury investigated current conditions in the Sacramento County Juvenile Justice System.
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury toured Juvenile Hall, the Warren E. Thornton Youth Center ( WETYC),
Boys Ranch and the Sandra Larsen Facility. Members of the Grand Jury also interviewed
Mental Health employees, the Mental Health Program Manager at Juvenile Hall, the
Deputy Chief of Probation and Probation Department personnel at Juvenile Hall. The
Grand Jury also reviewed the responses to the previous reports and looked for evidence
of their implementation.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
23
Background
As evidenced by previous Grand Jury reports, there is an increasing concern, not only
locally but nationally, for the growing number of juveniles with serious mental health
issues who are housed in detention instead of mental health facilities. The juvenile
justice system continues to be inadequately equipped to serve the mental health needs of
the juvenile population. The system continues to focus on custody rather than treatment.
The 2000- 2001 Grand Jury’s report, Mental Health Services in the County Juvenile
Justice System, cited a number of previous reports on these issues.
The 1999- 2000 Jury estimated 22% of juveniles in detention were suffering some form of
mental illness. In the 2000- 2001 report the estimation of those needing treatment had
grown to 25%.
Currently, approximately one of every three juveniles in the juvenile justice facilities
displays psychiatric problems. A report by the Criminal Justice Research Foundation
states, “ Youth Profile data developed has revealed that a significant number of youth in
our system are in need of expanded and specialized mental health services. For the past
36 months, about 29.2% of the custody population or approximately 132 juveniles
residing in Juvenile Hall, WETYC, and the Boys Ranch need mental health services.
System- wide, on an average daily basis, about 78 youth in detention are receiving
psychotropic medications.” Limited housing is available for those with psychiatric and
other special needs and therefore a large percentage of these youth remain housed in the
general population where the probability of behavior problems is greatly increased.
Lack of psychiatric facilities is a system wide problem. There is a lack of facilities to
adequately serve the number of individuals that need hospitalization. Such facilities need
to include acute and sub- acute care and be able to provide short- term diagnosis and
stabilization as well as longer- term care.
If adequate mental health services in the County were available; the county mental health
system could be more proactive in treating youth before their behavior results in entry
into the criminal justice system. More appropriate treatment after entry into the juvenile
justice system would also allow mentally ill youth to be stabilized for outpatient care or
increase their possibility for placement. Having juveniles receive treatment within an
appropriate mental health facility could assist in alleviating the impacted housing
problem that currently exists at Juvenile Hall. Many of the criminal behaviors exhibited
by juveniles are due in large part to their psychiatric issues. These issues end up causing
contact with the juvenile justice system. If left untreated, these behaviors will ultimately
lead to contact with the adult criminal justice system and an added and unnecessary
burden to taxpayers. Proper treatment in a mental health facility while still a juvenile
offers a possibility of avoiding this situation.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
24
Facts
Catholic Healthcare West ( CHW) provides mental health services within Juvenile Hall.
The Mental Health Division ( MHD) under the Department of Health and Human Services
( DHHS) of Sacramento County has recently taken over the monitoring of Catholic
Healthcare West. Although there has been little time to assess the impact this change will
have on services, it does provide direct oversight.
The 2000- 2001 Grand Jury’s Final Report recommended that MediCal funds be accessed
for the post- adjudicated juveniles. CHW has initiated a new program that can utilize the
MediCal funding that is available for post- adjudicated juveniles. MHD and CHW have
taken a positive step by initiating a field visit model in order to provide mental health
service for juveniles while awaiting placement. They are able to obtain MediCal
reimbursement for these services.
CHW clinicians from their outpatient clinics are making contact with the juveniles while
still in Juvenile Hall. This provides the opportunity to begin counseling and establishing
a relationship. When the juvenile is placed within the Sacramento area, that clinician can
follow the juvenile to provide continuing services. It is hoped the juvenile will live
within the area served by the CHW clinics. If not, at least the clinician has been able to
get to know the child, his/ her needs, and a treatment plan that may be shared with the
youth’s new clinician.
Juvenile Hall currently houses approximately 300 juveniles on a daily basis. On a single
day in April 2002, during a repeat visit by the Grand Jury, the population was 358. This
placed the facility well above the Board of Corrections' rated capacity of 261 beds and in
a condition that can only be considered as overcrowded. The Grand Jury learned this
overcrowded situation continues on a regular basis and that the State Board of
Corrections has granted a temporary increase in detention capacity.
Statistics obtained by the Grand Jury show that there could be approximately 40- 60
juveniles awaiting placement on any given day. It became apparent to the Grand Jury
that a lack of appropriate resources for placement creates a backlog within Juvenile Hall.
Many of these juveniles are difficult to place due to a variety of needs including mental
health needs and behavior problems. The Grand Jury also learned that many juveniles
are placed out of the county and sometimes out of state in order to provide adequate
treatment.
Currently only one psychiatrist serves all of the sites for the juvenile justice system and
this is at a 0.8 capacity rather than full time. This staffing level remains unchanged from
previous Grand Jury findings. According to those interviewed, there continues to be a
shortage of available child psychiatrists. The compensation and stressful working
environment make it more difficult to recruit both psychiatrists and other clinical staff to
meet the needs of youth in the juvenile justice system.
Space for mental health clinical staff to perform their duties at Juvenile Hall is limited.
This results in an environment that is not conducive to the delivery of mental health
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
25
services and counseling. The Probation Department and CHW staff confirmed that the
planned new building expansion at Juvenile Hall will provide CHW staff more
accessibility to juveniles with mental health issues. The Probation Department staff,
however, indicated that they are unable to designate psychiatric housing because of
mandated regulations and their belief that Juvenile Hall is a detention facility, not a
treatment facility.
Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations provides the Minimum Standards for
Juvenile Facilities. Although Juvenile Hall is a detent ion facility, Title 15, Section 1356
provides that a facility shall develop written policies and procedures ensuring the
availability of appropriate counseling and casework services for all minors. Section 1437
further specifies that the facility shall establish policies and procedures to provide mental
health services. Some of the services indicated include screening, crisis intervention,
stabilization and prevention of deterioration, and medication support. It also states that a
minor whose needs exceed the capability of the facility shall be referred and transported
for admission to a licensed mental health facility.
A limited number of beds are available in Sacramento County at Sutter, Sierra Vista, and
Heritage Oaks Hospitals for youth requiring psychiatric hospitalization. However,
Sacramento County frequently sends juveniles to San Francisco, Vallejo, and Modesto in
order to house them within a psychiatric facility. Some youths are also sent as far as
Metro Hospital in Los Angeles. This movement and housing incurs a greater cost to the
county for their care. This is not unique to this county, but should not deter Sacramento
County from pursuing a local juvenile psychiatric facility.
The Minor Emergency Response Team ( MERT) sees approximately 160 juve niles
requiring crisis intervention or authorization for inpatient care per month. This team is
housed directly adjacent to the adult crisis unit at Sacramento County Mental Health
Treatment Center. This facility used by the Minor Emergency Response Team is not
adequate to handle the number of juveniles requiring crisis services. By regulation,
MERT staff is only allowed to hold a youth for 23 hours.
In its 2000- 2001 report, the Grand Jury recommended the County provide a “ 25- bed free
standing, secure facility for juveniles whose mental conditions require acute and sub
acute levels of care.” In their response to the report, county officials stated, “ the Criminal
Justice Cabinet has contracted for a feasibility study that will evaluate the needs,
including the number of beds, the various funding sources, the costs, and the feasibility of
building such a facility.” The results of this study have not been made public.
The Grand Jury learned from information provided by the Mental Health Division for
FY 2001- 2002 that:
· 22.5 Clinicians, 6.5 Administrative Staff, and 2.0 Child Psychiatrists for all three
facilities are allocated. Within the allocations there are 3.0 vacant clinician
positions at the Sandra Larsen Youth Facility, 1.2 vacant psychiatrist positions,
and 2.0 vacant clinician positions at Juvenile Hall.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
26
· Because of cost increases, DHHS/ MHD is requesting additional funding authority
from the Board of Supervisors, through the 380 ( Final Budget) Process, to fund
the additional positions present in the FY 2001- 2002 agreement. This will
include 2.6 Clinicians and 1.13 Child Psychiatrists. Subsequent to the approval of
additional funding, positions will be added by agreement through an amendment.
· In the FY 2002- 2003 agreement, the Behavior Improvement Program ( BIP) will
not be funded. BIP will be funded through a separate contract between Probation
and Catholic Healthcare West ( CHW). The staffing for the FY 2002- 2003
agreement between DHHS/ MHD and CHW, assuming no increase in funding is:
15.9 Clinicians, 6.0 administrative Staff, and 0.87 Child Psychiatrist.
It is evident to the Grand Jury that, while allowing for the transfer of the Behavior
Improvement Program to a contract overseen by Probation with CHW, the statistics still
show a decrease of 2.6 Clinicians and 1.13 Child Psychiatrists for FY 2002- 2003.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. Approximately 160 juveniles per month need crisis intervention.
Additionally, 132 juvenile wards need daily mental health services. Limited facilities are
available to house youths with mental health and psychiatric needs in the juvenile justice
system of Sacramento County. This inability frequently requires sending juveniles out of
the area to San Francisco, Vallejo, Modesto and Los Angeles in order to house them
within a psychiatric facility at significant additional cost to the county.
Recommendation # 1. The 2000- 2001 Grand Jury recommended Sacramento County
build a 25- bed free standing` secure facility for juveniles. In its response DHHS indicated
they had initiated a feasibility study for such a facility. This Grand Jury reaffirms that
recommendation. Further, Sacramento County should now move forward and build such
a facility.
Finding # 2. There are currently vacant staff positions and an urgent need for additional
mental health positions within the juvenile justice facilities of Sacramento County that
should be immediately filled.
In spite of a demonstrated and urgent need for mental health staff, Sacramento County
proposes to decrease the number of mental health positions for FY 2002/ 03.
Recommendation # 2. The Board of Supervisors, DHHS, and the Mental Health
Division should find the financial means to hire additional staff willing to work in a
detention facility. This may require a restructuring of the pay scale or offering other
incentives in order to recruit additional qualified staff.
Finding # 3. Clinical staff is forced to work in limited space within the existing juvenile
justice facilities. This environment is not conducive to mental health counseling and
treatment.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
27
Recommendation # 3. Sacramento County needs to provide adequate and sufficient
space in the juvenile centers for clinicians to provide mental health services.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this Report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002, from:
· Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
· Chief Probation Officer, Sacramento County Probation Department
· Director, Department of Health and Human Services
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
28
The Directed Brokerage Program of the
Sacramento County Employees’
Retirement System
Subject of Investigation
The directed brokerage program of the Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement
System ( SCERS).
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury initiated an investigation to determine whether the Sacramento County
Employees’ Retirement System has a directed brokerage program in place and, if so, is it
being managed in as efficient a manner as possible.
Method of Investigation
Information concerning the directed brokerage program, and the policies and procedures
under which it operates, was obtained from SCERS. Additional information was
obtained from brokers.
Background
SCERS is a public employees retirement system managed and administered in
accordance with provisions of the County Employees’ Retirement Law of 1937
( California Government Code Section 31450, et seq.). The purpose is to provide
retirement, disability and/ or survivor benefits to eligible members and their beneficiaries.
As of December 31, 2001 SCERS had assets of $ 3.369 billion held in trust for pension
benefit obligations.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
29
The Board of Retirement has chosen to employ external investment managers to invest
the fund’s assets. As of December 31, 2001 there are seventeen investment managers
investing eighteen portfolios. SCERS also has investments in five commingled real
estate funds. To assist the Board in carrying out its responsibilities, SCERS hires
professional investment consultants and legal counsel who, along with investment and
accounting staff, closely monitor the activity of the managers and assist the Board in
developing and implementing investment policy.
SCERS has a widely diversified portfolio designed to reduce risk and achieve a return of
greater than 8% over a period of five or more years. This objective is being achieved and
the fund is meeting its performance objective.
“ Directed brokerage” exists when a pension plan directs its investment managers to
execute a portion of their trades through a selected brokerage firm or list of brokers with
whom the plan has a directed brokerage agreement. A broker who is willing to
participate in a directed brokerage program allows the pension plan to recapture a portion
of the commissions directed to it by the plan’s money managers in exchange for an
assured order flow of business.
By participating in a directed brokerage program, a plan can either recapture a portion of
commissions as cash to the plan or defray research expenses that it would otherwise pay
out of its operating budget. In all cases, trades and transactions must be made so as to
obtain the best execution for the plan. Since the major transaction cost is not the
commission but other implicit risks in market movement, liquidity, etc., directed
brokerage and commission recapture are very minor components in the decision to
purchase or sell securities.
The main objective of a properly run directed brokerage program is to make the process
transparent and complementary to the money manager trading style and profile, as well as
avoid problems or conflicts in execution of a trade. Since most retirement plans do not
have portfolios of sufficient size to require a dedicated staff person, a number of firms
provide administration and implementation of directed brokerage programs. These firms
relieve the plan of the need to enter into multiple broker agreements. By using
" corresponding brokers," a plan can provide its money managers with enough broker
choice and flexibility to make the program effective.
The main means of determining whether a directed brokerage program is effective is to
review and evaluate the percentage of yearly commissions that a plan requires its
managers to direct, and the conversion ratio that the plan is able to negotiate with
brokers.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
30
Facts
In 1996 SCERS adopted a policy that directed its investment managers to negotiate for a
commission of three cents a share or less, as long as the manager can obtain “ best
execution.” Based on the information provided to the Board by its Chief Investment
Officer and its investment consultant, the Board of Retirement decided not to direct
managers to use discount brokers or directed brokerage.
At the time of adoption of the 1996 policy, SCERS’ Chief Investment Officer estimated
that the policy adopted could save approximately $ 150,000 annually. Reports received
by the Grand Jury indicate that commission costs have varied from 2.6 cents to 3.4 cents
per share for all managers.
In early 2001, after a review of trade costs and a report from SCERS’ investment
consultant on directed commissions and commission recapture, the Board initiated a
commission recapture program to lower trade costs further than its 1996 policy. The
Board considered and agreed to accept a proposal from State Street Bank to administer a
commission recapture program through its network of recapture brokers. State Street
Bank estimated that SCERS would earn approximately $ 250,000 annually from
commission recapture, given their trade volume.
After SCERS investment managers were contacted for an evaluation of their trade
volume through brokers in the State Street Bank network, a goal was set for each
manager for the first year. The overall objective was for domestic equity managers to
direct 25% of their trades, and for international equity managers to direct 20% of their
trades. SCERS is currently evaluating the first year of the program to determine its
effectiveness.
SCERS accepted a Letter of Understanding with State Street Bank dated February 27,
2001 establishing the Bank as the sole source to provide the administration of its directed
brokerage program and to be its correspondent broker. Further, State Street Bank is
SCERS’ Custodian Bank. SCERS initiated its program after State Street Bank offered to
lower its custody fees by $ 5,000, an estimated 50% a month, if State Street Bank was
selected to administer the program. SCERS began its directed brokerage program in
March 2001.
SCERS has been receiving commissions recaptured at a conversion of 1.428: 1 ( 70%) on
U. S. equities and 2: 1 ( 50%) on international equities. The directed commission target
( the percentage of total annual commissions to be “ directed”) for U. S. commissions is
30%, and the target for international commissio ns is 20%. In ten months of operation in
2001, SCERS had directed brokerage commissions of $ 203,000 in domestic equities and
$ 36,000 in international equities.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
31
Directed brokerage is not a new or emerging part of the securities industry. Other public
retirement systems have had programs in place since the early 1990s. The average
amount of commissions recaptured by SCERS in ten months of operation in 2001
amounted to approximately $ 287,000 per year. In addition to the recaptured
commissions, SCERS is saving $ 60,000 a year in reduced custody fees by participating in
a directed brokerage plan run by its Custodian Bank.
During initial discussions, the Grand Jury learned from SCERS the commission recapture
percentage for international equities was 50%. The industry averages provided by a
survey of directed brokers ranged between 60 and 62.5%. SCERS has subsequently
negotiated an increase in the commission recapture percentage from 50 to 60%, an
increase to the plan of 20%.
Findings
The manager target of 20% is low for directed trades of international securities compared
to conservative targets of other plans. A target of 30% is acceptable to money managers,
but it would be appropriate to raise the target by at least 5%.
It would be appropriate for SCERS to receive monthly money manager reports of
commissions independent of reports supplied by State Street Bank. Without independent
reports, it is difficult to audit the actual commissions and to reconcile variances that
continually occur between manager and brokers. This is especially true for international
trades.
The fact that State Street Bank sought a directed brokerage arrangement with SCERS
instead of SCERS proactively seeking to establish a directed brokerage program on its
own initiative, indicates a breakdown in the yearly review process. The arrangement
between SCERS and State Street Bank has resulted in savings of approximately $ 310,000
a year. Had a directed brokerage arrangement been in place from 1997, upon a one year
review from the 1996 Board decision, the savings to SCERS would have amounted to an
estimated $ 1,500,000.
It appears that SCERS’ lack of annual review of best practices in the industry resulted in
their not taking advantage of discounted commissions and directed brokerage. Directed
brokerage arrangements have the ability to reduce net commission costs to the lowest
level of discounted commission.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
32
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. The commission recapture rate for the SCERS directed brokerage program
should be evaluated annually.
Recommendation # 1. The Board of Retirement should adopt a policy requiring SCERS
to review annually the commission recapture percentage for securities, ensuring that the
plan maintains best practices in the industry.
Finding # 2. Although intended as a trial target during the first year of the directed
brokerage program, a 20% international target for money managers of the SCERS
directed brokerage program is substantially less than that acceptable to money managers.
Recommendation # 2. SCERS should readjust the international target for money
managers upward to 30% if possible, but to not less than 25%.
Finding # 3. It does not appear that SCERS is receiving monthly money manager reports
of commissions independently of reports supplied by State Street Bank.
Recommendation # 3. In order to maintain a proper audit trail and enable the
reconciliation of variances, SCERS should direct its money managers to supply monthly
reports of all commissions generated in a portfolio that identifies directed commissions.
Finding # 4. SCERS Board and management have not made regular reviews of directed
brokerage issues or surveyed best practices in the industry. This has resulted in SCERS
not achieving the significant savings available through a directed brokerage arrangement.
Recommendation # 4. The Board of Retirement should direct its Chief Investment
Officer to begin a practice of periodic attendance at directed brokerage conferences and
seminars, and follow up such attendance with in- service workshops for the Board and
SCERS management.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by Septembe r 30, 2002, from:
· Board of Retirement, Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
33
- blank page -
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
34
Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment
Programs in Sacramento County
Subject of Investigation
Court- ordered batterer treatment programs for domestic violence offenders, certified by
the Sacramento County Probation Department.
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury received two complaints regarding batterer treatment programs. The first
complaint alleged that the Probation Department is allowing a particular batterer
treatment program to operate under different standards than those required of all other
such programs in the County. The second complaint alleged that the Domestic Violence
Unit of the Public Defender’s office is directing clients to avoid certain programs which
are officially certified by the Probation Department.
Method of Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed key personnel in the County Probation
Department, the District Attorney’s office, the Public Defender’s office, program
providers, and several participants in batterer treatment programs. The Grand Jury also
reviewed the authorizing legislation for court- ordered batterer treatment programs,
Batterer Treatment Provider Standards implemented by the County Probation
Department, the Certification and Renewal checklist used by the Sacramento County
Probation Department, and other documents relating to batterer treatment programs.
Grand Jurors also made unannounced visits to several certified programs and, with
permission of the participants, attended a two- hour class at each site.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
35
Background
California Penal Code Section 1203.097 provides that persons convicted of domestic
violence crimes and sentenced to formal probation are required to participate in a fifty-two
week batterer treatment program. Section 1203.097 establishes specific requirements
for training, staff, the number and duration of sessions per week, and absence and
payment policies. Successful completion of the fifty- two week program and payment of
fees are conditions of probation. Failure to complete the program is a violation of
probation and results in the issuance of an arrest warrant.
The goal of batterer treatment programs, as stated in Section 1203.097, “ shall be to stop
domestic violence,” and county probation departments are given “ sole authority to
approve the issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of approval and to cease new
enrollments or referrals to a Batterer’s program . . . ”
In response to this mandate, the Sacramento County Probation Department established
Batterer Treatment Provider Standards for these programs. The Provider Standards also
include a fee schedule set by the Superior Court, based on ability to pay, which all
certified programs are required to use. The sliding scale ranges from $ 0 up to $ 45 per
class, and fees may change over the fifty- two weeks of the program as the income levels
of participants fluctuate.
Once a defendant is convicted of a domestic violence crime and placed on formal
probation, he or she is required to report to the Probation Department. Penal Code
Section 1203.097 provides that the Department “ shall determine which batterer’s
program would be appropriate for the defendant,” and a probation officer shares the list
of “ certified” providers in the county with the probationer and notifies him or her to
enroll. Certified programs have met all requirements of the Probation Department, and
have been placed on an official list.
Facts
Several interviews with providers and Probation Department personnel established that
the Domestic Violence Unit in the Public Defender’s office often directs defendants to
certain programs on the certified list and away from others. The Public Defender
attorney interviewed expressed that attorneys in the unit have the right to give advice to
clients concerning such a choice, that advice to clients is an attorney’s prerogative, and is
based on problems other clients have had with certain programs. The attorney had never
visited any of the certified programs. Probation Department personnel indicated their
awareness of this problem and stated that they have been unsuccessful in resolving it.
Grand Jurors were told by the former director of a discontinued domestic violence
batterer treatment program that this practice of directing clients to certain programs and
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
36
away from others was the main factor leading to reduced numbers of participants and
ultimate closure of that program.
Penal Code Section 1203.097 mandates that “ in making referrals of indigent defendants
to approved batterer’s programs, the probation department shall apportion these referrals
evenly among the approved programs.” The practice of the Public Defender’s office in
directing clients to certain programs makes it difficult for the Probation Department to
ensure that indigent clients are spread evenly among the certified programs. Although
the Public Defender’s office attorney stated that advice regarding programs was not a
binding referral, providers interviewed commented that advice from an attorney to a
client is taken very seriously and often results in defendants selecting programs based on
that advice.
Grand Jurors were informed by a variety of sources that the intent of the law is to ensure
that no program has an inordinate number of non- paying clients that might jeopardize its
solvency. Penal Code Section 1203.097 provides that certified programs “ . . . shall allow
up to 10% of the total Probation/ Court referrals per group as indigent, but no program
shall be required to maintain more unless stip ulated by the program.” This mandate is
difficult to achieve if the Probation Department lacks control over referrals.
The Probation Department currently has twelve certified batterer treatment program
providers, and has succeeded in obtaining a good geographical distribution around the
county. Two of the twelve were certified as recently as April 2002.
One certified program, operated through the Grant Joint Union High School District’s
Adult Education Program, is not required by the Probation Department to adhere to the
fee schedule adopted by the Superior Court, and charges a flat $ 10 fee to all participants.
According to Grant District personnel, the program is an authorized Adult Education
class and the District is therefore able to collect Average Daily Attendance ( ADA) funds
to supplement its batterer treatment program fees. Participants in the Grant District’s
program who are indigent may have the $ 10 fee waived if they sign up for an additional
adult education class.
Members of the Grand Jury were told that Grant District’s program was put in place in
response to a need expressed by the courts for a more economical program. However, a
number of providers are concerned that not all providers are being held to the same
standard of payment. They rely on referrals of court- ordered offenders to stay in
business. These providers believe that a “ level playing field” must be maintained and
client referrals distributed throughout the area to ensure the continuance of an appropriate
number of programs.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
37
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. The Probation Department does not have total control of the referral process
for batterer treatment programs in Sacramento County, as assigned by Penal Code
Section 1203.097. The Public Defender’s office has assumed a role in advising clients to
enroll in certain programs and to avoid others.
Recommendation # 1. The Probation Department should assume total control of the
referral process. The Public Defender’s office should stop advising its clients to enroll in
specific batterer treatment programs and to avoid others. The Public Defender’s office
should refer specific problems identified with certain providers to the Probation
Department, which has authority to monitor programs and ensure compliance with
standards.
Finding # 2. The Probation Department is allowing one of its certified batterer treatment
program providers to be in noncompliance with its prescribed standards and fee schedules
in violation of Penal Code Section 1203.097.
Recommendation # 2. The Probation Department should immediately remedy this
violation, and require all batterer treatment programs to comply with the approved
standards and fee schedules.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:
· Public Defender, Sacramento County Public Defender’s Office:
Finding and Recommendation # 1
· Chief Probation Officer, Sacramento County Probation Department:
Findings # 1 and 2 and Recommendations # 1 and 2
Grand Juror Vicki Cody recused herself from any participation in the investigation,
discussion, preparation, editing and approval of this report.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
38
Elk Grove Unified School District Fails
Fiduciary Responsibilities
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury received a complaint alleging that the Elk Grove Unified School District
paid more than twice the fair market value for a property located at the intersection of
Bond and Bradshaw Roads.
Method of Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the District Superintendent and members of his
staff, the Elk Grove Unified School District Board President, the complainants and other
interested parties. Because of the reluctance of some witnesses to appear before the
Grand Jury and the sensitive issues involved, the Grand Jury requested the assistance of
the Attorney General's office. Subpoenas were prepared and served, and on April 24,
2002, under questioning from a Deputy Attorney General, sworn testimony was received
from additional witnesses.
Background
The Elk Grove Unified School District ( District) encompasses an area that includes the
southern portion of the City of Sacramento as well as the recently incorporated City of
Elk Grove. The City of Elk Grove has experienced phenomenal growth over the past
decade, and for that reason the District has had to construct new schools at a rapid pace.
A four year school construction bond measure was passed by the State of California in
1998.
During the first several months of 2000, the District attempted to purchase property for
the construction of a mega- school to be located in the area of Elk Grove Florin and
Gerber Roads. The District met with considerable resistance from residents who objected
to a school in that area, and decided to look for property elsewhere. In order to take full
advantage of the bond issue the District had to move quickly in purchasing an alternate
site.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
39
Facts
One of the areas the District identified as a possible school site was in the vicinity of the
intersection of Bond and Bradshaw Roads. To locate available parcels of land in the
area, the District contacted several well- known land developers/ real estate brokers.
One land developer identified a 106 plus acre parcel that was for sale on the northwest
corner of Bond and Bradshaw Roads. The Grand Jury understands that neither the
previous owner of this land nor his real estate broker was aware of the District's interest
in purchasing land in the area. The land developer purchased the parcel of land for
$ 4,000,000 ( roughly $ 37,000 an acre).
Within days of entering into this purchase contract, the land developer informed the
District that he had property for sale at the corner of Bond and Bradshaw Roads. The
District entered into negotiations with the land developer for the purchase of this
property.
Two independent appraisals were commisssioned by the District to determine the fair
market value of the land. The first appraisal placed the value of the land at $ 4,350,000
( roughly $ 41,000 per acre). The second appraisal placed the value at $ 6,942,000
( roughly $ 65,000 an acre). Both appraisers used the same standards, but differed as to
which properties were to be compared. Although the two appraisals differed greatly,
District staff did not question the value set by the second appraisal. The Grand Jury was
told the difference between the two appraisals was probably caused by the volatility of
the real estate market during this time, July 2000.
According to testimony received by the Grand Jury, the District is required by law to base
its sales price negotiations on the appraised value of the land plus or minus 10%. The
Grand Jury also learned the District had the opportunity to negotiate a price with the
seller of the property based on either appraisal. The District accepted the higher appraisal
because it believed that it more accurately reflected the market value of the land. The
District purchased the property for $ 6,928,400 ( roughly $ 63,000 an acre).
The District admits that it was unaware the parcel had previously been for sale over a
year at approximately $ 4,000,000. The District staff did not canvass the area looking for
property for sale but instead turned to a select group of real estate agents and land
developers to locate desirable property. District staff also admitted that the original
broker for this piece of property was not among the group contacted. Had District staff
members responsible for property acquisition driven by the corner of the property, a short
distance from District Headquarters, they would have seen a large broker's sign
advertising the property. Also, had the District advertised its interest in purchasing
property in the area, the original broker for the property told the Grand Jury he would
have contacted the District.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
40
Finding and Recommendation
Finding # 1. District staff members exhibited a very careless attitude toward their fiscal
responsibilities when negotiating the purchase of property. The Grand Jury also
concluded that had the District been more diligent in its search for school property, it
might have purchased the property for a price closer to the lower appraised value of
$ 4,350,000. The Elk Grove Unified School District failed in its fiduciary responsiblity to
taxpayers in the purchase of property located at the intersection of Bond and Bradshaw
Roads. This failure resulted in a loss to taxpayers of approximately $ 2.4 million.
Recommendation # 1. The Elk Grove Unified School District should:
a. develop formal policies and procedures for the purchase of school site
property that protect financial interests of the taxpayers and eliminate the
appearance of favoritism to any landowner, land developer or real estate
agent;
b. publish in a newspaper of general record an official notice of any decision by
the District to establish a new school or seek a new site location. An offical
notice should also be delivered to the local Board of Realtors;
c. direct staff to use all available resources for the selection of property for
school construction including physical inspection of properties for sale within
the area of interest as well as Multiple Listing and newspaper ads.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the finding and
recommendation contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the
Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:
· Board of Education, Elk Grove Unified School District
The following grand jurors recused themselves from any particpation in the
investigation, discussion, preparation editing or approval of this report:
· Rhea Brunner
· A. Michael Koewler
· James M. Moose, Jr.
· Jimmie E. Ward
The Grand Jury Advisor Judge also recused himself from providing legal advice on
this report.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
41
- blank page -
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
42
Encroaching Land Use Imperils
Sacramento’s Airport System
Subject of Investigation
The present and prospective negative impact on current and future plans for operations,
growth and development of Mather Field and Sacramento International Airport by
encroaching land development.
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury has concerns about the negative impact to the Sacramento County
Airport System’s current and future plans for operations, growth and development at both
Sacramento International Airport and Mather Field as a result of planning, zoning and
land use decisions made by local political bodies.
Land use decisions made by the Board of Supervisors, County Planning Department and
Commission, the City of Sacramento Pla nning Department, and the City of Sacramento
may seriously affect both airports’ operational status as well as future expansion plans.
These decisions create a high probability for curfews, limited operations, restricted flight
paths and the necessity of obtaining operational variances for continuation or expansion
of air transit operations.
These decisions have and will continue to expose Sacramento International Airport,
Mather Field, and the taxpayers of Sacramento County to potential liability for damages
from lawsuits brought against airport operations at both facilities. This liability arises
from lawsuits that could be brought by surrounding commercial operations and
residential homeowners in new developments allowed to build in close proximity to
known and pre- existing major aviation facilities.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
43
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury has sought to determine the nature of the challenges and difficulties
facing the operation and development of both Sacramento International Airport and
Mather Field. The Grand Jury has also looked for effective solutions and remedies to
these difficult problems. Documents obtained from the Sacramento County Airport
System ( System) and the Sacramento County Planning Department were reviewed and
interviews conducted with members of these departments and the Sacramento City
Planning Department. The Grand Jury also searched out and reviewed media articles and
other publications available in the public record.
Background
" Since Sacramento International opened Oct. 29 1967, the 5,500- acre airport site has
been a virtual island in a vast sea of farmland. The $ 22 million airport, which drew
thousands of sightseers during the opening weekend, was the first new major commercial
airport west of the Mississippi that was built from the ground up.
The economic impact of the airport is enormous. A county report issued two years ago
revealed Sacramento International, Mather and Sacramento Executive airports pack a $ 2
billion- a- year economic punch - twice as much as a decade earlier.
‘ It's important for the airport and the areas around us to move forward in a
complementary way," said Robert Leonard, assistant director of airports.’"
- The Sacramento Bee, April 7, 2002-
Sacramento County has been in the enviable position of not having Sacramento
International Airport be a nuisance to the surrounding area. By design or good fortune
Sacramento International Airport has had the luxury of not having to operate under many
of the limiting restrictions that other major airports suffer such as curfews, limited flights,
restricted flight paths and the need for operational variances. Sacramento International
Airport has benefited from its strategic placement in a " sea of farmland." That benefit is
now rapidly eroding.
Similarly, Mather Field was protected from the encroachment of residential building and
development while a United States Air Force Base. In the late 1980s the Air Force
announced the closing of Mather Field with operations turned over to the County of
Sacramento. On May 5, 1995 the Board of Supervisors voted to promote development of
Mather Field as an air cargo facility. At that time there was minimal residential housing
in close proximity.
Operations at Mather Field decreased significantly after the Air Force ceased operations,
and the airfield has not operated near its peak capacity since that time. However,
operations have continually increased since the base started operations as a civilian
airfield. At present there are no operating limitations or restrictions. The chance of this
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
44
being the situation in the future is in serious doubt given the development and building
that has been allowed and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
One of the most important responsibilities of the System is to plan, develop and operate
the airports in ways that maximize the benefits to the six- county Sacramento region. To
carry out the objectives of the System, the Board of Supervisors has deemed it
appropriate to have an Airport Master Plan. One segment of this plan will address
Mather Field. Another segment will address Sacramento International. The Airport
Master Plan, when adopted, becomes an integral part of the County General Plan. The
current Airport Master Plan, under which the System operates, dates back to the early
1980s and does not include Mather Field. This master plan deals with the development
of airport projects and operations, and at this time provides the basis for land use
planning surrounding only Sacramento International. The revised Airport Master Plan
will address land uses surrounding both major airports.
The Board of Supervisors has responsibility for planning, zoning, development and land
use through its control of the General Plan. The Board of Supervisors controls any land
use, development, zoning, and construction project within the unincorporated areas of the
county. Within the Sacramento city limits, the City Council has independent and
exclusive control of planning, zoning, development and land use.
Facts
The State of California Department of Transportation’s method of handling land use
issues surrounding an airport provides for the creation of an Airport Land Use
Commission ( ALUC) made up of representatives from various governmental entities
( cities and counties) in the immediate area. The ALUC makes an evaluation based on
projected airport operations and produces a Comprehensive Land Use Plan ( CLUP).
The ALUC determines the noise contours surrounding the airport and establishes land
uses that are consistent with the airport’s measured noise contours averaged over a 24-
hour period. Under the state regulations, the ALUC is required to prepare a CLUP up to
a 65dB contour line. The 65dB contour line ( the outer perimeter of the CLUP) represents
points from the airport that will have an average noise level of no more than 65dB over a
24- hour period. The Airport Land Use Commission does not have any enforcement
ability for a CLUP. The adoption of the ALUC’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan rests
with the city or county’s governing body. At Sacramento Interna tional Airport, the
Board of Supervisors requested the CLUP outer perimeter be extended to the 60dB
contour line. This CLUP is the most progressive in the state. No residential construction
restrictions or airport protections result from the operation of Sacramento International
Airport beyond the current CLUP. At Mather Field, the Board of Supervisors adopted a
Mather Airfield Policy Area ( MAPA) larger than the governing CLUP that also extends
to a 60dB contour line.
Mather Field started its civilian use by having an Airport Layout Plan developed. Since
planners were unable to determine the future extent of the airfield’s use, the maximum
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
45
capacity was employed. An Airport Layout Plan is a basic requirement for permission to
operate. The plan was also needed in order to develop an Environmental Impact Report
and Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Unsure whether air cargo carriers would locate at
Mather Field, the System decided to delay the development of a master plan segment for
Mather Field.
In Comprehensive Land Use Plans that use noise contour lines for their perimeters,
measurements are averaged over a 24- hour period. Since an average is used, there can be
single events that can be significantly higher. Sound level is measured on a logarithmic
scale, and thus an event of 90dB is much higher than the current CLUP perimeter line of
60dB. The significance of this issue can be compared to living on a street that is the main
route to a hospital but ten blocks away. The disturbance of allowing ambulances to run
their sirens along the street may only occur four or five times a day so that the “ average
noise level” on the street is low. However, if these events occur routinely or exclusively
between 11 p. m. and 2 a. m., they could be termed a nuisance because of the time and
intensity of these “ single” events.
The operational spheres of influence ( 5- mile radius) of both Sacramento International
Airport and Mather Field, the area where noise from single events can easily exceed
60dB, are larger than the current CLUPs identify. Currently school sites are prohibited
from being located within a 2- mile radius of a major airport.
The operational sphere of influence ( 5- mile radius) of Mather Field ( the area where noise
from single events can exceed 60dB) is much larger than the current CLUP or MAPA
identifies. Currently school sites are prohibited from being located within a 2- mile radius
of a major airport. Although the Board of Supervisors has allowed the Village of
Zinfandel project to be approved for development and proceed as a residential housing
project, the Sacramento Bee reported:
" the Aeronautics Division at Caltrans denied permission to the developers to build
schools on the Zinfandel site because state airport safety experts concluded that aircraft
operations at Mather ‘ will present a safety hazard and subject the school sites to
disruptive noise levels.’ In a 1998 letter Caltrans outlines its objections – ‘ The entire
project site is within the base and crosswind legs of the traffic pattern. In these areas,
aircraft will be at lower altitudes, descending to land or climbing after departure; pilots
are making considerable aircraft configuration changes, air speed and power changes,
flap changes, etc. Pilot workloads in these areas of the traffic pattern require
maneuvering the aircraft while scanning for traffic and communicating with either air
traffic control or directly to other pilots........... aircraft operations at Mather will present
a safety hazard and subject the school sites to disruptive noise levels............ We
conducted a review of the entire project area and determined the Zinfandel Project Site
will not offer a suitable school site because of overflight hazard.’"
- Sacramento Bee 3/ 18/ 2000-
As stated previously, a new Airport Master Plan is being developed. The Board of
Supervisors and the Sacramento City Council have allowed plans and projects to be put
in place that encroach on the operational sphere of influence of both Sacramento
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
46
International and Mather Field. This encroachment is commonly called “ moving to the
nuisance.” This has allowed builders and developers to place residential housing in close
proximity to the airport.
In the Mather Field area, the Board of Supervisors has allowed residential encroachment
into the operational sphere of influence needed for full long- term growth and
development of the airport. In the absence of a master plan for Mather Field, the Board
of Supervisors could have declared a building and developmental moratorium until a
master plan was adopted. Instead the Board of Supervisors has allowed builders and
developers to foreclose future growth options at Mather Field. The Villages of Zinfandel
project is a prime example. Approval of the Villages of Zinfandel project prevented any
possibility of extending Mather Field's current northern runway and making it a Category
3 ( Cat 3) runway. Category 3 runways are capable of total instrument landings and
takeoffs in all kinds of weather, day or night. These runways require more safety
clearance on the ground.
The Grand Jury also learned that any proposed new runway to the south of the current
southern runway would be prevented from becoming a Cat 3 runway, if the proposed
developments immediately to the south, southeast and east are permitted. As a result of
the lack of definitive land use planning that addresses the needed infrastructure for the
airport, plans and projects have been put into place that " move to the nuisance" next to
and into the flight paths of Mather Field.
The Grand Jury learned tha t existing and planned developments are rapidly encroaching
on the operational sphere of influence at Sacramento International. The preferred site for
a new Category 3 runway directly to the east of the airport had previously been
preempted by a planning decision made many years ago. The Board of Supervisors
declined to revisit this issue and directed staff to find another location.
The concept of “ moving to a nuisance” has been routinely upheld in legal cases. Moving
to the nuisance is a situation where expanding land development and home building
slowly but steadily begins to move toward what is commonly held to be an obvious
nuisance such as a dairy, a land fill, an industrial plant or an airport. Unpleasant noises,
smells, fumes or health issues can be used to either shut down or curtail the operations of
the offending entity. It does not matter that homeowners knew of the location and nature
of the nuisance before they purchased. Airport defenses of " being there first" and " being
on notice" of airport operations have not been successful against plaintiff lawsuits for
monetary damages or specific relief i. e. curfews, limiting operation or forced removal of
the operation. Airports in particular have been subject to many restrictions relating from
lawsuits brought by landowners. San Diego’s Lindbergh Field has an 11: 30 p. m.
departure curfew. Orange County's John Wayne airport has similar restrictions. San Jose
airport has had lawsuits filed over “ nuisance” at each end of the runway that taken
together come close to $ 100 million in damages.
The Board of Supervisors has delayed adopting a master plan segment for Mather Field
while stating to the public the County’s intention to develop the airfield into a busy,
“ World Class” air cargo hub. These planning decisions encroached upon the planned
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
47
long- term operational sphere of influence of the airfield. These actions by the Board of
Supervisors were in direct conflict with the projected growth and development plans for
Mather Field as an air cargo hub. As a result, the air cargo operators have been operating
in a climate of business uncertainty on issues related to the airfield’s infrastructure and
future. This uncertainty has continued until recently when many of the infrastructure
improvements sought by major carriers were met. A major exception is the request for
two Cat 3 runways. The carriers cite accident potential and/ or regularly required
maintenance as the need for redundant runways to avoid flight diversions to another
airport. Currently there are no Cat 3 runways at Mather Field.
The Grand Jury is aware that there is in Sacramento County, as in most counties
everywhere, a persistent and unrelenting pressure for growth and development which
most political entities have been unable to resist. Pressure could force decisions to be
made that are in direct contradiction to planning and land use professionals expert
opinion and advice.
The Board of Supervisors and the City of Sacramento have consistently allowed
developers and residential builders to " move to the nuisance." The reluctance of the
Board of Supervisors to create a buffer zone around Mather Field beyond the current
CLUP has allowed builders and developers of residential housing projects to encroach on
the flight paths of runways to the east and southeast. Similarly, the City of Sacramento
and the Board of Supervisors have allowed new housing and planned development to the
south and east of Sacramento International that approach the existing CLUP perimeter.
The reluctance to create a buffer zone around the airports beyond the current CLUPs has
allowed developers to plan projects and homeowners to move into homes that suffer from
the nuisances of being located near a major aviation facility. New homeowners complain
of airport noise and threaten lawsuits because the responsible agencies have not required
a mandatory Grant of Avigation and Noise Easement.
A Grant of Avigation and Noise Easement is similar to utility company easements
contained in most residential deeds that allow a limited use of property by another. An
Avigation and Noise easement grants permission to use the airspace above the identified
property to the holder of the easement. An Avigation and Noise easement prevents the
landowner from suing the holder of the easement for nuisance and monetary damages
except in extreme and unusual cases.
The System developed maps ( see Figures 1 and 2) defining the expected noise contour
lines for Sacramento International Airport. These maps show the expected noise
contours at both 60dB and 55dB for the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. The 55dB
lines were projected to show the potential impact that may be considered as residential
development continues to encroach on the airport. The noise contour lines at 55dB for
2005 reach past Highway 99 at Elverta Road on the east, an area where there are
thousands of proposed houses being planned for construction, and past I- 80 at I- 5 on the
southeast, completely encompassing all the new residential construction permitted by the
City of Sacramento west of I- 5 and north of I- 80.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
48
For land uses within the noise contour of 65dB, the State of California has deemed the
following land uses to be incompatible:
· Residential dwellings
· Public and private schools
· Hospitals and convalescent homes
· Churches, synagogues, temples and other places of worship
In essence, the state has mandated that high concentrations of people are incompatible
with airport operations in an area encompassed by an expected sound level of 65dB.
Sacramento County has elected to extend this zone to include the 60dB level. The Grand
Jury learned from Airport System staff that this zone could soon be expanded to include
the 55dB level at Sacramento International. As the area around Mather Field continues to
develop, it would seem prudent to expect a similar extension to the 55dB level.
Figure 1- 60dB Contour Lines at Sacramento International Airport
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
49
Figure 2 – 55dB Contours at Sacramento International Airport
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
50
Findings & Recommendations
Finding # 1. The existing Airport Master Plan is over 20 years old and is currently being
revised.
Recommendation # 1. With regard to Sacramento International Airport, the Board of
Supervisors should:
a) expedite the revision and approval of the Airport Master Plan.
b) make the growth, development and operation of Sacramento International Airport
the highest planning, development, zoning and land use priority and objective for
the airport’s operational sphere of influence, a 5- mile radius of the airport.
c) show on the Airport Master Plan all future runways and operations planned
through 2035.
d) work with local cities and counties surrounding Sacramento International Airport
to prevent residential and commercial/ industrial encroachment into flight paths of
all current and planned runways.
e) provide planning for additional Category 3 runways.
f) enact and enforce changes needed in the General Plan to insure that no land use
decision will be approved that restricts, conflicts or interferes with Sacramento
International’s growth, development and operation.
Finding # 2. The Board of Supervisors did not include plans for Mather Field in the
Airport Master Plan or in the alternative did not impose a developmental moratorium
upon acquisition from the U. S. Air Force.
Recommendation # 2. With regard to Mather Field, the Board of Supervisors should:
a. expedite the development and approval of the Airport Master Plan incorporating
Mather Field.
b. make the growth, development and operation of Mather Field as a “ world class”
air cargo hub the highest planning, development, zoning and land use priority
within a 5- mile radius of the airfild.
c. include a requirement for two Category 3 runways.
d. enact and enforce changes needed in the General Plan to insure that no land use
decision will be approved or allowed to continue that restricts, conflicts or
interferes with Mather Field's growth, development and operation.
Finding # 3. There are currently no plans by the Board of Supervisors and the City of
Sacramento to prevent residential construction from encroaching into the operational
sphere of influence of either Mather Field or Sacramento International airports.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
51
The Grand Jury believes it is therefore logical, relevant and instructive to consider the
evaluations and determinations by state safety experts of what is considered safety and
overflight hazards and disruptive noise levels when deciding on appropriate land uses. If
prohibiting a school site within a 2- mile radius of an airport is required by the state, and
children are at school only part of the day, it only seems logical that allowing residential
construction within that zone where parents and children would live 24- hours a day,
seven days a week is also inadvisable and inappropriate for exactly the same reasons.
Recommendation # 3.
a. The Board of Supervisors should require mandatory Grants of Avigation and
Noise Easements in favor of the Sacramento County Airport System, Sacramento
County and the City of Sacramento be obtained and required of anyone issued a
permit or given permission to build within the sphere of influence ( 5- mile radius)
of either airport.
b. The Board of Supervisors and/ or Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)
should require and make it a mandatory condition that a Grant of Avigation and
Noise Easement be granted to Sacramento County Airport System and
Sacramento County for any property located within a 5- mile radius of Sacramento
International Airport or Mather Field prior to any incorporation of a new city or
annexation of land by an existing city.
c. That a requirement for disclosure of these easements be included in any property
transfer, lease or other use within the operational sphere of influence of both
airports.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002, from:
· Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
· Sacramento City Council
· Director, Sacramento County Airport System
· LAFCO: Finding and Recommendation # 3
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
52
Folsom Sewage Spills Continue
Subject of Investigation
Investigation into the cause and responsibility for a series of sewage spills in the City of
Folsom between 1995 and 2000.
Reason for Investigation
The pollution involved the American River and some of its tributaries. The Grand Jury
felt that it was appropriate to investigate because there is danger of environmental
damage to this source of drinking water, and to this area of recreation for a large number
of Sacramento County residents.
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed management staff and a consultant to the City of Folsom,
Department of Public Works; representatives of the State of California, Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board ( CVRWQCB); representatives of the Sacramento
Regional County Sanitation District ( SRCSD); and members of the Save the American
River Association ( SARA). Members of the Grand Jury also reviewed press reports
concerning the spills and attended Folsom City Council meetings and CVRWQCB
meetings.
Background
In the late 1980s the Folsom City Council adopted a general plan that allowed Folsom to
grow to approximately 70,000 residents by 2010. That general plan is still in place today.
By 1991- 1992 the demand for housing accelerated to meet the needs of new business
moving to Folsom. Recently, the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)
granted to Folsom “ sphere of influence” designation to acreage south of Highway 50.
This sphere of influence designation gives the Folsom City Council an important voice in
the use and development of this property. It will eventually lead to the annexation of the
property and expansion of the city borders. The Grand Jury is unaware of any plans the
Council has for this property.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
53
In 1995 the first of a series of sewage spills occurred. Subsequent studies conducted by
independent consultants contracted by the City of Folsom demonstrated the increased risk
for spills if needed maintenance and repair were not provided. The city administration
and city council failed to increase the maintenance and repair of its system but rather
relied on increased flow capacity being installed by the SRCSD to solve the problem.
This increased flow capacity was not provided until two weeks after the January 2000
spill.
Facts
The amount and frequency of sewage spills in Folsom has been well documented by
public agencies as well as the press. Between 1995 and January 2000 there were at least
five sewage spills from the City of Folsom that flowed into tributaries of the American
River. These include the 650,000- gallon spill in 1997 and a 700,000- gallon spill in
January 2000. This latest event combined with the history of a number of lesser spills
culminated in the state CVRWQCB fining the City of Folsom $ 700,000 for the January
2000 spill. In addition, in late spring of 2000, the CVRWQCB issued a Cleanup and
Abatement Order to the City. Subsequently, on March 1, 2002, the CVRWQCB
approved the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order and a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ( NPDES) permit. The Cease and Desist Order requires the City of
Folsom to put in place a system that repairs, replaces and monitors the Folsom sanitary
sewage collection system. It also requires Folsom to report periodically to the Regional
Water Quality Control Board the progress it is making towards updating the sewer
system. The Cease and Desist Order specifies April 2009 as the final date for the
elimination of all sanitary sewer overflows.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. The City of Folsom is largely respons ible for the sewage spills that occurred
from 1995 to 2000 including the January 2000 spill that resulted in a $ 700,000 fine.
Recommendation # 1. The City of Folsom should fully comply with the NPDES permit
and the Cease and Desist Order issued by the Cent ral Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board. By readily accepting the actions the permit and order requires, the City of
Folsom can demonstrate to its residents and those who live downstream that Folsom is
committed to the best sewer system possible. These actions would also demonstrate
leadership in preventing damage to the surrounding environment.
Finding # 2. The City of Folsom has been granted “ sphere of influence” to acreage south
of Highway 50 by LAFCO.
Recommendation # 2. In view of the history of aggressive growth allowed by the City
of Folsom, no action should be taken by the current city council or future city councils to
annex the land south of Highway 50.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
54
This recommendation should remain in effect until the expiration and completion of the
Cease and Desist Order by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in April 2009.
Should the City of Folsom want to expedite development south of Highway 50, it should
fulfill the requirements of the Cease and Desist Order earlier than April 2009.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:
· Director of Public Works, City of Folsom
· Folsom City Council
Grand Juror James M. Moose, Jr. recused himself from any participation in the
investigation, discussion, preparation, editing, or approval of the report.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
55
- blank page -
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
56
Status of Volunteer Firefighters Serving
as Members of the Board of Directors of
the Wilton Fire Protection District
Subject of Investigation
Wilton Fire Protection District.
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding possible violations of the Health and
Safety Code, the Brown Act ( Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.), and other
provisions of the Government Code.
Method of Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, the Chairman of the Wilton
Fire Protection District Board of Directors, and the Sacramento County Counsel, who is
the Grand Jury's legal adviser. A review was also made of the District Board of
Directors’ meeting minutes and the Wilton Fire Protection Policy and Procedure Manual.
Background
The Wilton Fire Protection District is a special district formed under Health and Safety
Code Sections 13800 et seq. The purpose of the District is to respond to all reported
emergencies in the community of Wilton and surrounding area.
A Board of Directors, consisting of five members, is responsible for the management of
the District. The citizens of the community elect all members of the Board. The District
has approximately 42 staff, of whom 35 are community volunteers trained to respond to
emergencies.
Volunteers are paid $ 8.00 per call plus $ 8.00 for any mandatory drill or training.
Changes in salary are approved by the Wilton Fire Protection District’s Board of
Directors.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
57
Facts
Three of the directors were also employed as volunteer firefighters at the time of this
complaint. One has since resigned from the Board, but continues to work as a volunteer
firefighter.
Government Code Sections 1090 through 1098 prohibit public officers from being
financially interested in contracts made by them in their official capacity. The provisions
apply to members of the Legislature, and to state, county, district, ju

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter from the Grand Jury Foreperson iii
Grand Jurors – 2001 – 2002 v
History
History of the Grand Jury 1
Reports and Investigations
Adult Protective Services
What is the Future of our Elder
and Dependent Adults? 10
Bureau of Family Support 18
Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental
Health Services 22
The Directed Brokerage Program of the
Sacramento County Employees’
Retirement System 28
Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment
Programs in Sacramento County 34
Elk Grove Unified School District Fails
Fiduciary Responsibilities 38
Encroaching Land Use Imperils Sacramento’s
Airport System 42
Folsom Sewage Spills Continue 52
Status of Volunteer Firefighters Serving as
Members of the Board of Directors of
The Wilton Fire Protection District 56
Transportation of Prisoners for Non- Emergency
Medical Care by California Department of
Corrections 60
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
( CONTINUED)
Unequal Treatment of Sentenced Female Inmates
in Sacramento County 64
Ten- Year Index of Final Reports
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
iii
June 10, 2002
The Honorable Richard K. Park
Advisor Judge to the Grand Jury
Sacramento Superior Court
720 Ninth Street, Department 39
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Judge Park:
In compliance with Penal Code section 933, the Sacramento County Grand
Jury is pleased to submit to you its 2001- 2002 Final Report.
It has been my honor and privilege to serve as Foreperson of the Grand Jury.
This Final Report is the cumulative result of the nineteen member Grand Jury
working countless hours researching, investigating, interviewing and
deliberating over a number of issues.
On behalf of my colleagues, we are grateful for the sincere dedication of all
the public officials with whom we spoke. We were met with a high level of
cooperation and openness by the staff, directors, and public officials with
whom we came in contact. They were readily available, forthright in
providing information, and generous in contributing their time to inform jurors
about programs, policies and procedures.
Concerned members of the public brought many of the issues to our attention.
Others were initiated by the Jury as a result of our observations during tours of
various governmental facilities or from other sources. Although every
complaint submitted to the Grand Jury received our consideration, many did
not result in formal action, so much of the efforts of the Jury is not reflected in
this report.
The Jury wishes to express its sincere appreciation to you, Judge Park, for the
superior advice and support you provided as our Advisor Judge. We are also
indebted to the assistance and advice of County Counsel, and the Department
of Justice Attorney General’s Office.
Julie M. Fong, Foreperson
Robert R. Argo
Olivia D. Balcao
Rhea A. Brunner
Donald E. Bunn
Vicki E. Cody
Dave Cox
Merritt Davis
Aida Q. de la Vega
Barry T. Heilman
Eleanor C. Hoffman
A. Michael Koewler
Charles R. Lindholm
Marshall M. Mitche ll
James M. Moose, Jr.
Robert J. Storelli
Margaret Troffey
Cosme A. Valdez
Jimmie E. Ward
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
iv
Finally, special thanks go to Michelle Park, Executive Secretary for the Grand Jury, for her
invaluable knowledge, professionalism and her outstanding work on our behalf.
The members of the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury are honored to have served our community and hope
our efforts are a positive contribution towards better government.
Sincerely,
JULIE FONG, Foreperson
2001- 2002 Sacramento County Grand Jury
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
v
2001- 2002 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY
Robert R. Argo
Olivia D. Balcao
Rhea Brunner
Donald E. Bunn
Vicki Cody
Dave Cox
Merritt L. Davis
Aida Q. de la Vega
Julie M. Fong, Foreperson
Barry T. Heilman
Eleanor C. Hoffman
A. Michael Koewler
Charles R. Lindholm
Marshall M. Mitchell
James M. Moose, Jr.
Robert J. Storelli
Margaret Troffey
Cosme A. Valdez
Jimmie E. Ward
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
HISTORY
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
1
HISTORY OF THE
GRAND JURY
The grand jury is the means by which people who volunteer from every walk of
life work within the judicial system to ensure that the institutions of government are
responsive and fair to those who are governed. It also protects minority opinions or
unpopular causes from persecution or prosecution. The grand jury concept has a long
history and has adapted throughout the centuries to meet the needs and conditions of each
time period.
Grand juries perform two primary roles. One is to evaluate the validity of charges
being brought by a prosecutor, if the charges are not reviewed by a judge, to ensure that
they are not frivolous or ungrounded. The other is to inquire into, and investigate if
necessary, the operations of local government agencies and officials to ensure that
activities are valid and services are efficiently and legally provided. In both instances,
the secrecy of the grand jury’s deliberations is a common thread that ensures independent
and objective consideration of facts brought before it.
History of the Grand Jury: Before American Development
Some historians believe that the earliest versions of the grand jury existed in
Athens, where the Greeks used citizen groups to develop accusations. Others find traces
of the concept in all the Teutonic peoples, including early Anglo- Saxons. For example,
the concept was employed in the early Scandinavian countries. Evidence also exists that
the early French developed the “ King’s Audit” involving citizens who were sworn and
required to provide fiscal information related to the operation of the kingdom.
However, most commentators believe that the grand jury arose as an institution in
England. In the first millennium, English individuals prosecuted criminals, with the king
personally involved in the system. Under the Doom Law of Anglo- Saxon King
Aethelred ( 980- 1016), a dozen landowners were appointed to investigate alleged crimes.
In 1166, King Henry II established a system of local informers ( twelve men from every
one hundred) to identify those who were “ suspected of” various crimes. If the suspects
survived their “ trials by ordeal”, they paid fines to the King. However, the “ informers”
were fined if they failed to indict any suspect, or even enough suspects. After 1188, they
became tax collectors as well, and after the reign of Henry III, they were charged with
looking into the condition and maintenance of public works.
The Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215, did not mention the grand jury
specifically, but did establish various procedures to ensure fairness in the dispensation of
justice. Thereafter, until the mid- 1300’ s, the 12- man juries served both to present
indictments and also to rule on the validity of charges. During Edward III’s reign, from
1312- 1377, the 12 individuals were replaced by 24 knights, called “ le grande inquest”,
and the 12 became a “ petit jury” responsible only for declaring innocent or guilty
verdicts.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
2
Ultimately, in the 1600’ s, the English grand jury developed as a process to
determine whether there was probable cause to believe that an accused individual was
guilty of a crime. Grand juries reached their English pinnacle of citizen protectors in
1681, when they refused to indict enemies of King Charles II for alleged crimes.
( Ironically, English laws establishing grand juries were repealed in 1933.)
History of the Grand Jury: Early American Development
The use of juries in earliest colonial history was limited. In the New Haven
colony, for example, religious beliefs resulted in the residents eliminating trial by jury
because there was no reference to juries in the laws of Moses. However, procedures
similar to grand juries were used to hear criminal charges of larceny ( Boston, 1644),
holding a disorderly meeting ( Plymouth, 1651), and witchcraft ( Pennsylvania, 1683).
In the early 1600’ s, colonial representatives of the English monarchs made laws
and prosecuted violators. The first grand juries recommended civil charges against those
crown agents, thus establishing themselves as representatives of the governed, similar to
grand juries today. The first grand juries also looked into government misconduct or
neglect. For exa mple, the first colonial grand jury, established in Massachusetts in 1635,
“ presented” town officials for neglecting to repair stocks, as well as considering cases of
murder, robbery and spousal abuse.
Other early grand juries performed a variety of administrative functions, including
audits of county funds ( New Jersey), inspections of public buildings ( Carolinas), and
review of taxes and public works ( Virginia). Virginia grand juries also investigated
whether each family planted two acres of corn per person.
In the Colonies, grand juries were considering criminal accusations and
investigating government officials and activities, but with a populist view. Grand jurors
included popular leaders such as Paul Revere and John Hancock’s brother. These grand
juries played a critical role in the pre- Revolutionary period: for example, three grand
juries refused to indict John Peter Zenger, whose newspaper criticized the royal
governor’s actions in New York ( he ultimately was prosecuted by the provincial attorney,
defended by Alexander Hamilton, and acquitted). Grand juries also denounced arbitrary
royal intrusions on citizens’ rights, refused to indict the leaders against the Stamp Act of
1765, and refused to bring libel charges against the editors of the Boston Gazette in 1766.
After the Revolutionary War ended, the new federal constitution did not include a
grand jury. Early American leaders such as John Hancock and James Madison objected.
Thereafter, the grand jury was included in the Bill of Rights, as part of the Fifth
Amendment, which states, “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia whe n in actual service in time of war
or public danger…”
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
3
From then, until today, the federal grand jury remains an integral part of the
justice system, used by federal prosecutors for a variety of potential crimes. In 1801, a
federal grand jury indicted Colonel Aaron Burr for treason. Most recently, federal grand
juries considered allegations related to the Oklahoma City and New York Trade Center
bombings, President Clinton’s conduct both before and during his term of office, and the
recent claims of wrong- doing by former California Insurance Commissioner Chuck
Quackenbush and some associates.
History of the Grand Jury: Adaptation by the States
As the various states were admitted to the Union and adopted their legal and
operating procedures, almost every one initially included some reliance on grand juries
for either ( or both) review of criminal indictments or inquiries into government activities.
Some states’ grand juries were very active in administrative affairs, even including
recommending new laws. Others carried out investigations of government officials; one
Tennessee grand jury indicted the entire state court of appeals and another opposed a
judge’s reappointment on the grounds of “ mental imbecility”.
Throughout this state- by- state development, the underlying concept remained the
same: ordinary citizens, neighbors, and others on grand juries were a necessary part of
government to ensure that public prosecutors were not swayed by personal or political
prejudices, and that government officials efficiently and effectively performed their jobs.
Since the mid- 1800’ s, grand juries have been criticized as ineffective or out- of-date
by a number of reformers because they were slow, lacked expertise, and on other
grounds. Others criticized the “ star chamber” atmosphere of secret hearings without
customary due process rights. However, these complaints were offset by effective grand
jury investigations, including those of the Boss Tweed ring in New York City ( 1871) and
racketeering charges brought by a grand jury assisted by Thomas Dewey in the 1930’ s.
Since the nineteenth century, various minor and major changes have been made in grand
jury selection, procedures, and qualifications, often resulting in fairer and more efficient
jury operations.
Today, all states except Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia, may use grand juries to indict and begin criminal trials. Twenty- three states
and the District of Columbia require that grand jury indictments be used for certain—
more serious— crimes. California and twenty- four other states make use of grand jury
indictments optional. All states and the District of Columbia use grand juries for
investigative purposes.
The Grand Jury’s Role in Criminal Prosecutions
Although the American grand jury originally was conceived as a protector of
ordinary citizens by other ordinary citizens, the fairness of its criminal operations has
been questioned by various commentators and judges. U. S. Supreme Court Justice
William Douglas stated, “ It is, indeed, common knowledge that the Grand Jury, having
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
4
been conceived as a bulwark between the citizen and the Government, is now a tool of
the Executive.” Some even have referred to it as a “ rubber stamp” for prosecutors.
In the criminal system, the California constitution and laws provide that felony
prosecutions are initiated only after a determination that there is “ probable cause” to
believe that specific individuals committed specific crimes. This is done either by an
“ information” presented for examination and approval by a judge, or by indictment after
a grand jury hearing and vote. In either case, the purpose of the objective review is to
prevent overzealous prosecutors from unjustified, groundless, or unfair prosecutions
when “ probable cause” does not exist.
The grand jury operates without providing many fundamental rights common in
court hearings and trials. For example, the defendant has neither the right to present
evidence to the grand jury or cross- examine the witnesses against him or her. Only the
prosecutor may present evidence, and the defendant has no right to counsel, even if
required to testify. Even judges generally are excluded, leaving the grand jurors to rely
on the prosecutor for all information. One early study indicated that 95% of all cases
brought to the grand jury resulted in indictments, raising questions about the value of this
review because the grand jury is not able to adequately evaluate the evidence presented
only by the district attorney.
The Grand Jury’s Role in Civil Investigations
The role of the grand jury in civil investigations presents an interesting twist: the
original ( English) grand juries served to aid the government in finding and prosecuting
private citizens’ misdeeds; now, these juries investigate and accuse public figures,
defending individual citizens’ rights and expectations. Grand juries, both federal and
state, may investigate criminal activity or non- criminal activities. In California, for
example, the grand jury can investigate any activity by a public official ( other than a
judge) which violates a state law, and many other activities, as long as they occur within
the county of the grand jury.
State grand juries— but not federal grand juries— can investigate any non- criminal
activity and report and make recommendations based on the results of the investigation.
These investigations commonly include reviewing the operation and condition of jails
and prisons, investigating the conduct of local public officials, and other similar matters
of public health, safety, and welfare. The results of these investigations may be criminal
charges, recommendations for new laws, or merely reports to the public identifying
problems but proposing no specific solutions.
California Grand Juries: An Overview
Grand Juries are impaneled in every county in California. Article I, § 23 of the California
Constitution states: “ a grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in
each county.” Depending on a county’s population, a specified number of citizens
ranging from 11 to 23 in each of California’s 58 counties are empowered to investigate
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
5
and report on various activities of county and city government. The rules governing the
makeup, organization, powers and duties of grand juries in California are found in the
California Penal Code § 888- 939. Recent changes in the Penal Code ( § 904.6, 1991)
permit any county to have an additional grand jury at the discretion of the presiding judge
of the superior court.
The statutes permit some variation in the manner and time of selection of jurors and
require only that the term of service be for one year and coincide with the County’s fiscal
year. Qualifications for grand jurors are outlined in Penal Code § 893. This section
requires the prospective grand juror be at least 18 years old, in possession of their natural
faculties and have sufficient knowledge of the English language. In Sacramento County,
each grand jury begins its term July 1 and ends its service June 30 of the following year.
Throughout the State, prospective grand jurors in each county are chosen through a
lengthy process that includes application, screening by the jury commissioner from
Department of Motor Vehicle Records and nomination of interested persons by Superior
Court Judges. A thorough background check is made on all interested persons and list of
qualified candidates is submitted to the judges for review and approval. Since some
members of the existing grand jury may be carried over for a second term, the number of
names drawn will equal those needed to provide a grand jury of 19 members. ( The law
allows for a grand jury of 23 in counties with greater than a four million population and
for 11 members in counties with less than 20,000 population. ( Penal Code § 888.2))
It has been the practice in many counties to advertise widely and to encourage many
people to apply for the grand jury. Because grand jury service requires the devotion and
commitment to spend 20 hours per week or more for only a token payment, it is desirable
for grand jurors to have an interest in community affairs and be open- minded with a true
concern for the views of others. Grand jurors also should posses some investigative skills
and be able to take good notes and write and type reports. A good knowledge of the
functions and responsibilities of city and county government is also helpful.
California Grand Juries: Investigation of Complaints and Accusations
The grand jury also is likely to receive a number of citizen complaints, many of which
involve operations of county or city agencies or special districts. Whether the complaint
is civil or criminal, rules of secrecy apply, and during the course of its investigation, the
grand jury may not divulge the subject or methods of inquiry. The subject of the
investigation and the methods of inquiry are only revealed when the final report is
published. Privileged or confidential material is not included in the grand jury reports.
Thus the names of those questioned and facts that might lead to the identity of a person
who provided information to the grand jury are not released.
§ 919( c) of the Penal Code requires the grand jury to inquire into the willful or corrupt
misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county. Where
misconduct is found, the grand jury may file an accusation leading to a trial. If the official
is convicted, the person is thereby removed from office. Very few of these accusations
are filed. Frequently, if there is misconduct in office, it is of a criminal nature, and an
indictment rather than an accusation would be issued. It is also possible that an official
would resign rather than face an accusation.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
6
The grand jury may file an accusatory pleading against a corporation doing business in its
county of jurisdiction ( Penal Code § 892).
In a report published by the California Grand Jurors Association, misconduct in office
could include any of the following:
Nonfeasance:
( 1) The failure to act where duty requires an act; or
( 2) Neglect or refusal, without sufficient cause or excuse, to do that which is the
officer's legal duty to do, whether willfully or through malice; or
( 3) Willful neglect of duty.
Misfeasance:
( 1) The improper or doing of an act that a person might lawfully do; or
( 2) The performance of a duty or act that one ought to do or has a right to do, but in a
manner such as to infringe upon the rights of others.
Malfeasance:
( 1) The performance of an act that is positively unlawful or wrong; or
( 2) The performance of a wrongful act that the person has no legal right to do.
Duties of the Grand Jury: Government Watchdog
In California today, provisions of the Penal Code to require the grand jury:
( 1) Investigate and report on the accounts, records, operations, and functions of
district, city and county government and public officials ( Penal Code § 925 &
925a); It may also inquire into the affairs of joint powers agencies located in the
county.
( 2) Inquire into the condition and management of all correctional facilities within the
county ( Penal Code § 919( b)).
The grand jury may investigate or inquire into county matters of civil concern, such as
the needs of county officers, including the abolition or creation of offices and the
equipment for, or the method or system of performing the duties of the several offices.
Powers permitted to the grand jury include:
( 1) free access, at reasonable times, to public prisons;
( 2) the right to examine all public records within the county;
( 3) the right to examine books and records of ( a) any incorporated city, or joint
powers agency located in the county; ( b) certain redevelopment agencies and
housing authorities; ( c) special- purpose assessing or taxing districts wholly or
partly within the county; & ( d) non- profit corporations established by or operated
on behalf of a public entity;
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
7
( 4) the authority to investigate and report on operations and methods of performing
duties of any such city, county, or joint powers agency and to make
recommendations as deemed proper;
( 5) the ability, with permission of the Superior Court, to hire experts such as auditors
and accountants;
( 6) the right to inquire into the sale, transfer and ownership of lands which might or
should escheat to the state.
Note: The grand jury has no authority to investigate the courts or the acts or
omissions of any judge or judicial employee.
Duties of the Grand Jury: Criminal Indictments
The California Constitution permits criminal trial on the basis of indictment by a grand
jury or by information after the district attorney recommends prosecution and a judge
agrees that facts exist which warrant prosecution. In addition, under § 917 of the Penal
Code, " the grand jury may inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the
county, and present them to the court by indictment." In actual practice, grand juries
seldom initiate suc h inquiries; rather, such offenses are generally brought to the grand
jury by the district attorney, who asks for and generally receives an indictment, upon
presentation of adequate facts.
According to the California Grand jurors Association, the district attorney much more
frequently bypasses the grand jury and uses the process known as a preliminary hearing.
A 1954 survey of California district attorneys listed the following factors as influential in
the decision to seek a grand jury indictment rather tha n using the preliminary hearing: ( 1)
high public interest in the case; ( 2) the fact that a preliminary hearing would take more
time than a grand jury hearing; ( 3) the necessity for calling children or witnesses who
would be subject to cross- examination at a preliminary hearing; ( 4) the existence of a
weak or doubtful case which the district attorney wishes to test; ( 5) cases involving
malfeasance in office; and ( 6) the fact that witnesses are in a state prison.
A more recent study adds the following reasons for using the grand jury: ( 1) cases where
the defendant cannot be located and the time limit under the statute of limitations is about
to expire, ( 2) where the secrecy of the grand jury may allow defendants to be charged and
taken into custody before they can pose potential danger to a witness's safety or flee from
the jurisdiction, ( 3) the need to protect the identity of undercover agents, and ( 4) the
ability to test a witness before a jury.
From 1978 until 1990, grand juries were seldom used for indictments. A California
Supreme Court ruling required holding preliminary hearings even if grand jury
indictments were obtained. In 1990, a constitutional amendment made significant
alterations in California criminal law and court procedures, including a provis ion that
defendants were not entitled to preliminary hearings if indicted by a grand jury. As noted
above, recent statutes ( Penal Code § 904.6) give district attorneys the option of using
special grand juries chosen from the regular jury pool to handle criminal cases and thus
ensure indictment by those who represent a cross section of the community. Although the
law allows criminal indictments to be brought by a grand jury, in practice, the District
Attorney generally prefers to use the speedier preliminary hearing process.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
8
Grand Jury: Reports
State Law requires that each grand jury submit a final report of its findings and
recommendations to the presiding judge of the Superior Court. In addition to the
mandated reports on financial audits and the conditio n of adult and juvenile detention
facilities, recent Sacramento County grand jury reports have covered such topics as the
Department of Health and Human Services, criminal and juvenile justice agendas, other
municipalities and special districts.
A report, just as an accusation or an indictment, must be approved by at least 12 of the 19
grand jurors ( 15 if it is a 23 member jury). With so many possible investigations and a
term limited to a single year, it is necessary for each grand jury to make hard decisions as
to what it wishes to undertake during the term. Except for mandated duties to report on
the financial condition of the county and on the conditions of county jails, the grand jury
has great discretion in determining its agenda.
Most grand juries divide into committees for conducting investigations and for writing
reports, but there seems to be a wide variation between counties as to the number and
structure of committees; it is up to each grand jury to determine its own method of
operation within the parameters of the law.
Government agencies that are the subject of reports are required by law to respond to
specific grand jury findings and recommendations. However, the grand jury has no
enforcement power, and the agencies are under no legal obligation to carry out the
recommendations. While some recommendations are ignored, others are followed,
particularly those that suggest greater efficiency for operations and that do not require the
expenditure of large sums of money. Grand jury criticisms of public officials and
agencies frequently attract press attention, bringing greater community awareness of what
is happening in public agencies. Many grand jurors believe that public officials tend to be
more accountable when they know an impartial; outside body is looking over their
collective shoulders.
The California Grand Jurors Association ( CGJA) ( www. cgja. org), a statewide
organization of former grand jurors has begun a program of identifying and indexing
grand jury reports in each county with the hope of establishing a state archive of annual
reports. The State Library also maintains an archive of grand jury reports from all
counties. CGJA also monitors and occasionally proposes or endorses proposed laws to
conserve and improve the grand jury as an important institution of local government. It
offers services to those grand juries that may request advice and help in preparing
informational manuals and in providing orientation for incoming jurors. Some members
of the CGJA now provide orientation programs for those counties that request this
service.
While surrounded by secrecy before publication, grand jury reports become public
documents when signed by the grand jury foreman and approved by the grand jury’s
advisory judge. Copies are sent: to all targeted government agencies, to interested
officials, to public and private groups and individuals and to the press. At the end of the
year, bound or loose- leaf copies of all reports are placed in all public libraries.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
9
Copies of recent Sacramento County Grand Jury reports may be found on the Grand
Jury’s website. ( www. sacgrandjury. org) Individuals may request copies from:
Sacramento County Grand Jury
720 9th Street, Room 611
Sacramento, CA 95814
( 916) 874- 7559 ( voice mail)
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
REPORTS
AND
INVESTIGATIONS
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
10
Adult Protective Services
What Is the Future of Our Elder and
Dependent Adults?
Subject of Investigation
Delivery of Adult Protective Services in Sacramento County.
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury received a complaint that Adult Protective Services ( APS) lacked
coordination with local agencies.
Method of Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the Division Manager for Senior and Adult
Services, the Program Manage r for Adult Protective Services, a Sacramento County
Administrative Services officer, employees of local senior services agencies, a former
Sacramento County APS employee and a consultant to local counties. The members also
read the Report on the Sacramento Community System of Protection for Senior and
Dependent Adults, October 2001, issued by the Adult System of Protection Team. They
reviewed the Manual Letter No. APS- 01- 01, effective 10- 29- 01, Adult Protective
Services Program, pages 5- 6, 38 as well as the response letters, 1- 15- 02 and 4- 26- 02 from
the Division Manager for Senior and Adult Services. They also reviewed the letter to the
Grand Jury from the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS)
dated 5- 2- 01.
Background
Sacramento County Adult Protective Services, Division of Senior and Adult Services, is
the county agency responsible for carrying out the mandates in Section 15763.3( c) and
other sections of the Welfare and Institutions Code. This Section states in part that a
county shall provide case management services to elders and dependent adults who are
determined to be in need of adult protective services for the purpose of bringing about
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
11
changes in their lives and to provide a safety net to enable them to protect themselves in
the future. These services are intended for both the elderly and dependent adults ( 18- 64
years of age), and specifically include basic protections such as food, emergency shelters,
home protective care, and other services that may be of value on a case by case basis.
Statistics released by the Sacramento Community Services Planning Council indicate that
since 1990, in Sacramento County, the portion of the population ages 65 to 84 has
increased 18.4%, from 100,746 persons in 1990 to 119,283 persons in 2000. The portion
of the population age 85 and older has increased dramatically by 55.8%, from 9,534
persons in 1990 to 14,854 persons in 2000. This growth trend is dramatically continuing
locally and nationally.
From the late 1980s to the early 1990s the Adult Protective Services program in this
County suffered extreme budget cuts, that reduced the local services to a skeletal
structure. Prior to these budget cuts Adult Protective Services was a recognized leader in
its approach to the issue of elder and dependent adult abuse. Services remained at a
minimum until 1998 when Senate Bill 2199 addressing elder and dependent adult abuse
was enacted into law. This bill amended the State Welfare and Institutions Code by
expanding the definition of mandated reporters and included abandonment, isolation,
financial abuse, and neglect as reportable offenses.
In response to SB 2199, the Adult and Aging Commission's Oversight Committee
conducted a public forum, resulting in the formation of an Adult System of Protection
Team. This Team spent two years ( 1999- 2001) evaluating the current system and
identifying areas that needed improvement to guarantee seniors and dependent adults
adequate protection from neglect and abuse. The Team identified several themes needing
attention, including case management, direct service, and followup, and released a final
report in October 2001. One of the key recommendations in the report asked the county
Board of Supervisors to direct the Department of Health and Human Services to develop
a budget proposal to fund and establish a case management unit for FY 2002. APS
confirmed that case management services are currently not being provided nor is there a
plan to implement case management in FY 2002- 2003. Grand Jurors concur with the
frustration expressed by professionals interviewed during the investigation. Two years of
studying the problems with a strong confirmation that case management is necessary only
to be followed by yet another year of study rather than actual implementation of services
is a waste of resources.
Concurrent with the beginning of this study, Adult and Senior Services initiated a
Department of Health and Human Services/ District Attorney Elder Abuse Prevention
media campaign. According to the Adult and Senior Services Division, a significant
increase in referrals occurred as a result of the media campaign as well as the increase in
reporting requirements in SB 2199
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
12
Facts
The original complaint to the Grand Jury stated there was a lack of coordination between
APS and other agencies. However, during this investigation what became most evident
was the need for more enhanced services to reduce the number of cases being reopened.
According to interviews with the administration of Adult and Senior Services, APS stated
their interpretation of the language of new state regulations clearly provides that, " APS is
not intended to be a long- term, ongoing case management activity...." On the other hand
they expressed the need for case management services, and the reasons for not providing
them were lack of staff and funding. In fact, it was stated that, " any reassignment of
social work staff, to a case management unit, would make it impossible to make a timely
and effective response to incoming reports of abuse…"
The Grand Jury learned that APS placed a cap of 90 consecutive days of intervention
with a client, at which time the case is closed whether the case is stabilized or not.
Professionals interviewed agreed that to arbitrarily set a cap of 90 days often denies the
individuals the full opportunity for services that specifically address their situation. It
precludes reassessment and a management plan that can be modified when necessary.
Some cases may require far less than 90 days, and others may require up to 12 months to
stabilize. This conclusion, according to those interviewed, was deemed consistent with
the State's language not to be a long- term, ongoing case management program. Members
of the Grand Jury also found language that does provide for " time- limited" case
management within the scope of service.
However, in interviews, APS admitted, " it is typical that any client with complex or
resistive problems has his/ her case closed without the problem being significantly solved
and then re- opened due to subsequent crisis calls.” Statistics provided by APS showed
10,710 cases opened between January 1998 and January 2002 that represented only 7,245
clients, or 27.5% of the clients accounting for 50.1% of case openings. APS reported that
had these cases been effectively resolved through case management services, it would
have resulted in savings of approximately $ 2,700,000 over that four- year period.
Not included in these savings is the significant cost to the County of ancillary services for
the individuals who continually have repeat contact, with expenses incurred through
contact with law enforcement and medical emergencies, in addition to other services.
The statistics, provided to the members of the Grand Jury showing the highest risk cases
by type and number of abuses, indicate that some cases were re- opened up to 14 times
over a four- year period.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
13
Sacramento County Adult Protective Services had an allocation of $ 762,920 in FY
1998/ 1999. By FY 2001/ 2002, APS allocation had been increased to $ 2,413,626. ( See
Budget Table). During this time of an augmented budget, APS has increased staff and
their ability to handle emergency responses, but has not provided enhanced services such
as case management as directed by SB 2199, ( enacted in 1998).
Adult and Senior Services reports that " the APS allocation is dedicated strictly to the
APS Program. The CSBG ( County Services Block Grant) allocation includes funding for
Information and Referral, Out- of- Home Care Services for Adults, and optional programs
and activities performed in the above categories by Skilled Professional
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
14
Medical Personnel ( SPMP). However, at this time, the Department is using the CSBG
allocation to fund certain activities of the Public Guardian/ Conservator's Office.
It was learned through interviews with other community agencies that there are case
management programs for seniors to whom APS makes referrals when available and
appropriate. Grand Jurors also learned of possible additional funding sources APS might
pursue to fund case management services. One such program is MediCal Administrative
Activities ( MAA).
A second funding source is Targeted Case Management ( TCM) which became a covered
MediCal benefit effective January 1, 1995 under the Welfare and Institutions Code,
Section 14132.44. TCM consists of case management services to a specified target
population who need medical, social, educational and other services. TCM was designed
to include documented assessment, service plan development, linkage and consultation,
assistance in accessing service, crisis assistance planning and periodic review for adults
at risk for abuse, neglect, and possible institutionalization.
Adult Protective Services confirmed that it has not pursued Targeted Case Management
funding. It was stated that the Sacramento County Conservator's Office pursues
reimbursement through TCM on a small scale. APS also stated that TCM is only at a
50% reimbursement rate for services, and believes what is currently being done by APS
is more fiscally advantageous. A consultant who works with other counties verified that
TCM could have long- range savings.
It is the position of the County that TCM creates a burden on the social worker and the
DHHS Fiscal Department. Adult and Senior Services reports that an additional staff
person would be required to process the claims. However, the Grand Jury was informed
during interviews that there is a statewide consortium comprised of county fiscal persons,
and that Sacramento County already has a TCM coordinator position. APS could not
substantiate if this position is still active and what duties are involved.
Persons with expertise in TCM validated the additional reporting requirement by the
social worker because specific documentation is necessary to obtain reimbursement. The
documentation would require training and/ or specific software. There are a number of
public and private agencies located locally and nationally that use various forms of
software for this purpose. Persons with expertise in TCM indicate that the use of TCM
software actually minimizes the time a worker spends on documentation, and the
software also ensures reimbursement through this proper documentation.
The Grand Jury did not find that Sacramento County Adult Protective Services lacked
coordination with local agencies. The Grand Jury did determine that APS could expand
on its coordination more effectively. To the credit of Sacramento County Adult and
Senior Services, it had established a multidisciplinary team ( MDT) long before it was
mandated in Senate Bill 2199. This was in effect during the years before the major
budget cuts. APS continued to support and maintain the need for a forum to present
difficult cases and coordinate with other agencies, even when staffing, money, and
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
15
options were very limited. It has assisted in reaching positive resolution for many of
these cases. APS continues to chair this type of forum and has enjoyed increased
participation from a number of community agencies. Currently, Sacramento County's
MDT meets one time per month for 2 hours.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. During FY 2000/ 2001, with an augmented budget, APS increased its staff
and its ability for emergency response, but has not provided enhanced services such as
case management as required by SB 2199. APS concurs that there is a need for case
management, but attributes its absence to lack of staff and funding.
Recommendation # 1. Sacramento County APS should immediately implement a pilot
program of case management for the identified highest risk cases. APS should
implement case management as specified in SB 2199 and the two- year study.
Finding # 2. APS administrators were unable to provide members of the Grand Jury with
documentation requiring the 90 day cap, and it is unclear whether this is imposed by state
regulations or self- imposed by the County.
Recommendation # 2. Adult Protective Services needs to remove the 90- day cap on the
amount of time a case can remain open.
Finding # 3. Adult Protective Services has not pursued Targeted Case Management
funding. Although TCM provides money at a 50% reimbursement, it is additional
funding separate from their current revenue source.
Recommendation # 3.
a. Adult Protective Services should explore the possibility of additional funding
through Targeted Case Management or MediC al Administrative Assistance.
b. If APS no longer maintains an MAA/ TCM Coordinator, then it would be
advisable for APS to hire a consultant to determine if they qualify for a
coordinator and how best to increase reimbursement for services.
c. APS should consider the purchase of appropriate software to assist in proper
documentation.
Finding # 4. There appears to be a philosophy within APS of using crisis intervention
and quick closure as the primary remedy. If the cases opened from January 1998 through
January 2002, as noted, had been effectively resolved through case management, they
would have resulted in savings of approximately $ 2,700,000 over that four- year period.
The savings would be greater if the impact to other systems, such as emergency rooms,
law enforcement, etc. were considered.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
16
Recommendation # 4. Adult Protective Services should reconfigure its system of
triaging/ prioritizing cases after the initial response in order to better determine the need
for type and length of continued services to reduce re- opening of cases.
Finding # 5. APS workers and staff of other agencies regularly consult on individual
cases for multi- problem individuals which can become time intensive. Sacramento
County's Multidisciplinary Team ( MDT) with its composition of numerous community
agencies, meets one time per month for two hours. Given the number of cases that are
processed through APS, the use of the MDT only once a month is not adequate. The
Grand Jury determined that Adult Protective Services could expand on its coordination
with community agencies, and it could utilize this collaboration and coordination more
effectively through an expanded use of the MDT.
Recommendation # 5.
a. The MDT should meet on a weekly basis to alleviate the burden/ workload of each
individual agency involved in each case by allowing presentation and follow up in
less than 30 days as needed.
b. APS needs to develop continued and expanded collaboration with social service,
health, and criminal justice agencies in order to link clients with necessary services
and supports to more effectively create stability. Beyond the scope of referral, APS
should collaborate on the cases and follow up on the success of the referral.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:
· Director, Department of Health & Human Services
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
17
- blank page -
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
18
Bureau of Family Support
Subject of Investigation
The operations of the Sacramento County Bureau of Family Support.
Reason for Investigation
The Bureau of Family Support has a well- publicized history of being overwhelmed by its
workload. The Grand Jury opened an investigation to determine if there were any
opportunities to improve its efficiency.
Method of Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews with staff of the Bureau of Family
Support and examined written materials provided by the Bureau.
Background
The Bureau of Family Support provides child support enforcement and collection
services for custodial parents ( its clients), and attempts to obtain reimbursement from
non- custodial parents for funds expended by the County. Historically, it has functioned
as a part of the Office of the District Attorney, but on July 1, 2002 it will become a
separate county department. Recent legislation has established the California Department
of Child Support Services and a plan for a state- directed, locally delivered, child support
program to be uniformly administered in all 58 counties.
The Bureau of Family Support provides services to its clients in an environment of
urgency and anxiety. It has done so for several years while maintaining a high caseload
per worker and periods of understaffing. Disagreements frequently arise between the
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
19
Bureau and its clients as to level of service and the appropriateness of priorities. As a
result, clients are frustrated and bureau staff is stressed. So far as the public is concerned,
these conflicting views, to which client advocacy groups contribute, tend to mask true
conditions in the Bureau.
Facts
The Bureau has in the past been overwhelmed by its workload. This has largely been the
result of processes and procedures that relied on “ hardcopy” files, notorious for
generating frustrations and delays when they are “ out” or are misplaced or lost. The
labor intensive nature of maintaining records in this format, and the sheer physical
limitations which it imposes, created a situation in 1994- 1995 which forced the Bureau to
employ temporary workers to do location searches on non- custodial parents, case
evaluations, and case closures as required by federal funding mandates. The Bureau also
relied on a state- approved and funded computer project that ended up having to be
abandoned.
Personnel turnover has exceeded 20%, in part because of the movement of some
employees to the new California Department of Child Support Services. The current
vacancy rate is over 10% of all full time equivalent staff positions, and the understaffing
is critical because it exists in entry- level positions where client contacts and services
occur. Apart from stress on staff and clients, this understaffing inhibits the Bureau’s
ability to locate and recover funds.
In the last several years there have been a number of improvements in processes and
procedures, that have partially offset the Bureau’s continuous understaffing. Despite
these improvements the Bureau had to reduce the time a case can remain open from three
years to two. This is due in part to the need to maintain statistics within approved federal
guidelines. Because of these guidelines, there is no procedure for maintaining cases in a
semi- inactive status. As a result, semi- annual or quarterly asset location checks are not
done.
The Grand Jury learned the Probate Department of the Sacramento Superior Court has no
process or procedure requiring the entry into an electronic database of the personal
identification of individuals who are to obtain funds from probated estates. Such a
requirement would enable the Bureau to locate non- custodial parents and their assets.
Currently, the Bureau must rely on tips from custodial parents to learn of pending
disbursements from probated estates.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
20
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. The public and clients do not appear to understand the scope of client
services offered by the Bureau of Family Support. This causes stress to bureau staff and
inhibits good relations between the Bureau, its clients, and client advocacy groups.
Recommendation # 1. The Board of Supervisors should publish an annual audit of the
Bureau of Family Support. At a minimum, the findings should include scope of service,
waiting periods, unfilled positions, progress in collections, and cases opened and closed.
Finding # 2. The 10% vacancy rate of all full time equivalent staff positions in the
Bureau of Family Support has a substantial negative impact on the Bureau’s operating
objectives, and creates an environment in which staff feels overwhelmed and clients feel
frustrated and unhappy.
Recommendation # 2. The Board of Supervisors should provide for urgent or emergency
funding of staff positions whenever the Bureau’s vacancy rate is over 10% of all full time
equivalent staff positions.
Finding # 3. Closing cases for an inability to locate non- custodial parents after two years
does not allow the fullest opportunity to locate highly mobile absent parents.
Recommendation # 3. The Bureau should negotiate with the California Department of
Child Support Services and other county child support agencies to create a common
category of semi- inactive cases to be kept open for at least three years for location
purposes.
Finding # 4. The availability of a database containing the names and Social Security
numbers of persons to whom probate distributions are made would aid the Bureau in
locating non- custodial parents to collect child support and other obligations.
Recommendation # 4. The Bureau should seek a change in the rules of the Probate
Department of the Sacramento Superior Court to establish such a database. In addition,
the Bureau should undertake an initiative with the California Department of Child
Support Services, other county child support agencies, and revenue agencies, to obtain
legislation requiring the establishment of such databases by probate departments
statewide.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
21
Responses Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002, from:
· Sacramento County Board of Supervisors: Findings and Recommendations
# 1 and 2
· Director, Bureau of Family Support: Findings and Recommendations # 3
and 4
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
22
Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental
Health Services
Subject of Investigation
Mental health services for juveniles processed through the Sacramento County Juvenile
Justice System, with emphasis on Juvenile Hall.
Reason for Investigation
A distinct double standard appears to the Grand Jury to exist when we compare the
treatment of health problems with visible symptoms to mental health problems with no
outwardly visible symptoms. An example of this would be the public outcry that would
result from a high school coach forcing a student with a broken leg to run in a 100- yard
sprint and the equally unreasonable expectation of a student with untreated mental health
problems to “ be normal”.
The Grand Jury for 2000- 2001 published a report addressing the status of mental health
services in the county juvenile justice system. Within that report there were a number of
findings and recommendations. In follow- up to the previous report, the 2001- 2002 Grand
Jury investigated current conditions in the Sacramento County Juvenile Justice System.
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury toured Juvenile Hall, the Warren E. Thornton Youth Center ( WETYC),
Boys Ranch and the Sandra Larsen Facility. Members of the Grand Jury also interviewed
Mental Health employees, the Mental Health Program Manager at Juvenile Hall, the
Deputy Chief of Probation and Probation Department personnel at Juvenile Hall. The
Grand Jury also reviewed the responses to the previous reports and looked for evidence
of their implementation.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
23
Background
As evidenced by previous Grand Jury reports, there is an increasing concern, not only
locally but nationally, for the growing number of juveniles with serious mental health
issues who are housed in detention instead of mental health facilities. The juvenile
justice system continues to be inadequately equipped to serve the mental health needs of
the juvenile population. The system continues to focus on custody rather than treatment.
The 2000- 2001 Grand Jury’s report, Mental Health Services in the County Juvenile
Justice System, cited a number of previous reports on these issues.
The 1999- 2000 Jury estimated 22% of juveniles in detention were suffering some form of
mental illness. In the 2000- 2001 report the estimation of those needing treatment had
grown to 25%.
Currently, approximately one of every three juveniles in the juvenile justice facilities
displays psychiatric problems. A report by the Criminal Justice Research Foundation
states, “ Youth Profile data developed has revealed that a significant number of youth in
our system are in need of expanded and specialized mental health services. For the past
36 months, about 29.2% of the custody population or approximately 132 juveniles
residing in Juvenile Hall, WETYC, and the Boys Ranch need mental health services.
System- wide, on an average daily basis, about 78 youth in detention are receiving
psychotropic medications.” Limited housing is available for those with psychiatric and
other special needs and therefore a large percentage of these youth remain housed in the
general population where the probability of behavior problems is greatly increased.
Lack of psychiatric facilities is a system wide problem. There is a lack of facilities to
adequately serve the number of individuals that need hospitalization. Such facilities need
to include acute and sub- acute care and be able to provide short- term diagnosis and
stabilization as well as longer- term care.
If adequate mental health services in the County were available; the county mental health
system could be more proactive in treating youth before their behavior results in entry
into the criminal justice system. More appropriate treatment after entry into the juvenile
justice system would also allow mentally ill youth to be stabilized for outpatient care or
increase their possibility for placement. Having juveniles receive treatment within an
appropriate mental health facility could assist in alleviating the impacted housing
problem that currently exists at Juvenile Hall. Many of the criminal behaviors exhibited
by juveniles are due in large part to their psychiatric issues. These issues end up causing
contact with the juvenile justice system. If left untreated, these behaviors will ultimately
lead to contact with the adult criminal justice system and an added and unnecessary
burden to taxpayers. Proper treatment in a mental health facility while still a juvenile
offers a possibility of avoiding this situation.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
24
Facts
Catholic Healthcare West ( CHW) provides mental health services within Juvenile Hall.
The Mental Health Division ( MHD) under the Department of Health and Human Services
( DHHS) of Sacramento County has recently taken over the monitoring of Catholic
Healthcare West. Although there has been little time to assess the impact this change will
have on services, it does provide direct oversight.
The 2000- 2001 Grand Jury’s Final Report recommended that MediCal funds be accessed
for the post- adjudicated juveniles. CHW has initiated a new program that can utilize the
MediCal funding that is available for post- adjudicated juveniles. MHD and CHW have
taken a positive step by initiating a field visit model in order to provide mental health
service for juveniles while awaiting placement. They are able to obtain MediCal
reimbursement for these services.
CHW clinicians from their outpatient clinics are making contact with the juveniles while
still in Juvenile Hall. This provides the opportunity to begin counseling and establishing
a relationship. When the juvenile is placed within the Sacramento area, that clinician can
follow the juvenile to provide continuing services. It is hoped the juvenile will live
within the area served by the CHW clinics. If not, at least the clinician has been able to
get to know the child, his/ her needs, and a treatment plan that may be shared with the
youth’s new clinician.
Juvenile Hall currently houses approximately 300 juveniles on a daily basis. On a single
day in April 2002, during a repeat visit by the Grand Jury, the population was 358. This
placed the facility well above the Board of Corrections' rated capacity of 261 beds and in
a condition that can only be considered as overcrowded. The Grand Jury learned this
overcrowded situation continues on a regular basis and that the State Board of
Corrections has granted a temporary increase in detention capacity.
Statistics obtained by the Grand Jury show that there could be approximately 40- 60
juveniles awaiting placement on any given day. It became apparent to the Grand Jury
that a lack of appropriate resources for placement creates a backlog within Juvenile Hall.
Many of these juveniles are difficult to place due to a variety of needs including mental
health needs and behavior problems. The Grand Jury also learned that many juveniles
are placed out of the county and sometimes out of state in order to provide adequate
treatment.
Currently only one psychiatrist serves all of the sites for the juvenile justice system and
this is at a 0.8 capacity rather than full time. This staffing level remains unchanged from
previous Grand Jury findings. According to those interviewed, there continues to be a
shortage of available child psychiatrists. The compensation and stressful working
environment make it more difficult to recruit both psychiatrists and other clinical staff to
meet the needs of youth in the juvenile justice system.
Space for mental health clinical staff to perform their duties at Juvenile Hall is limited.
This results in an environment that is not conducive to the delivery of mental health
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
25
services and counseling. The Probation Department and CHW staff confirmed that the
planned new building expansion at Juvenile Hall will provide CHW staff more
accessibility to juveniles with mental health issues. The Probation Department staff,
however, indicated that they are unable to designate psychiatric housing because of
mandated regulations and their belief that Juvenile Hall is a detention facility, not a
treatment facility.
Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations provides the Minimum Standards for
Juvenile Facilities. Although Juvenile Hall is a detent ion facility, Title 15, Section 1356
provides that a facility shall develop written policies and procedures ensuring the
availability of appropriate counseling and casework services for all minors. Section 1437
further specifies that the facility shall establish policies and procedures to provide mental
health services. Some of the services indicated include screening, crisis intervention,
stabilization and prevention of deterioration, and medication support. It also states that a
minor whose needs exceed the capability of the facility shall be referred and transported
for admission to a licensed mental health facility.
A limited number of beds are available in Sacramento County at Sutter, Sierra Vista, and
Heritage Oaks Hospitals for youth requiring psychiatric hospitalization. However,
Sacramento County frequently sends juveniles to San Francisco, Vallejo, and Modesto in
order to house them within a psychiatric facility. Some youths are also sent as far as
Metro Hospital in Los Angeles. This movement and housing incurs a greater cost to the
county for their care. This is not unique to this county, but should not deter Sacramento
County from pursuing a local juvenile psychiatric facility.
The Minor Emergency Response Team ( MERT) sees approximately 160 juve niles
requiring crisis intervention or authorization for inpatient care per month. This team is
housed directly adjacent to the adult crisis unit at Sacramento County Mental Health
Treatment Center. This facility used by the Minor Emergency Response Team is not
adequate to handle the number of juveniles requiring crisis services. By regulation,
MERT staff is only allowed to hold a youth for 23 hours.
In its 2000- 2001 report, the Grand Jury recommended the County provide a “ 25- bed free
standing, secure facility for juveniles whose mental conditions require acute and sub
acute levels of care.” In their response to the report, county officials stated, “ the Criminal
Justice Cabinet has contracted for a feasibility study that will evaluate the needs,
including the number of beds, the various funding sources, the costs, and the feasibility of
building such a facility.” The results of this study have not been made public.
The Grand Jury learned from information provided by the Mental Health Division for
FY 2001- 2002 that:
· 22.5 Clinicians, 6.5 Administrative Staff, and 2.0 Child Psychiatrists for all three
facilities are allocated. Within the allocations there are 3.0 vacant clinician
positions at the Sandra Larsen Youth Facility, 1.2 vacant psychiatrist positions,
and 2.0 vacant clinician positions at Juvenile Hall.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
26
· Because of cost increases, DHHS/ MHD is requesting additional funding authority
from the Board of Supervisors, through the 380 ( Final Budget) Process, to fund
the additional positions present in the FY 2001- 2002 agreement. This will
include 2.6 Clinicians and 1.13 Child Psychiatrists. Subsequent to the approval of
additional funding, positions will be added by agreement through an amendment.
· In the FY 2002- 2003 agreement, the Behavior Improvement Program ( BIP) will
not be funded. BIP will be funded through a separate contract between Probation
and Catholic Healthcare West ( CHW). The staffing for the FY 2002- 2003
agreement between DHHS/ MHD and CHW, assuming no increase in funding is:
15.9 Clinicians, 6.0 administrative Staff, and 0.87 Child Psychiatrist.
It is evident to the Grand Jury that, while allowing for the transfer of the Behavior
Improvement Program to a contract overseen by Probation with CHW, the statistics still
show a decrease of 2.6 Clinicians and 1.13 Child Psychiatrists for FY 2002- 2003.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. Approximately 160 juveniles per month need crisis intervention.
Additionally, 132 juvenile wards need daily mental health services. Limited facilities are
available to house youths with mental health and psychiatric needs in the juvenile justice
system of Sacramento County. This inability frequently requires sending juveniles out of
the area to San Francisco, Vallejo, Modesto and Los Angeles in order to house them
within a psychiatric facility at significant additional cost to the county.
Recommendation # 1. The 2000- 2001 Grand Jury recommended Sacramento County
build a 25- bed free standing` secure facility for juveniles. In its response DHHS indicated
they had initiated a feasibility study for such a facility. This Grand Jury reaffirms that
recommendation. Further, Sacramento County should now move forward and build such
a facility.
Finding # 2. There are currently vacant staff positions and an urgent need for additional
mental health positions within the juvenile justice facilities of Sacramento County that
should be immediately filled.
In spite of a demonstrated and urgent need for mental health staff, Sacramento County
proposes to decrease the number of mental health positions for FY 2002/ 03.
Recommendation # 2. The Board of Supervisors, DHHS, and the Mental Health
Division should find the financial means to hire additional staff willing to work in a
detention facility. This may require a restructuring of the pay scale or offering other
incentives in order to recruit additional qualified staff.
Finding # 3. Clinical staff is forced to work in limited space within the existing juvenile
justice facilities. This environment is not conducive to mental health counseling and
treatment.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
27
Recommendation # 3. Sacramento County needs to provide adequate and sufficient
space in the juvenile centers for clinicians to provide mental health services.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this Report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002, from:
· Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
· Chief Probation Officer, Sacramento County Probation Department
· Director, Department of Health and Human Services
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
28
The Directed Brokerage Program of the
Sacramento County Employees’
Retirement System
Subject of Investigation
The directed brokerage program of the Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement
System ( SCERS).
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury initiated an investigation to determine whether the Sacramento County
Employees’ Retirement System has a directed brokerage program in place and, if so, is it
being managed in as efficient a manner as possible.
Method of Investigation
Information concerning the directed brokerage program, and the policies and procedures
under which it operates, was obtained from SCERS. Additional information was
obtained from brokers.
Background
SCERS is a public employees retirement system managed and administered in
accordance with provisions of the County Employees’ Retirement Law of 1937
( California Government Code Section 31450, et seq.). The purpose is to provide
retirement, disability and/ or survivor benefits to eligible members and their beneficiaries.
As of December 31, 2001 SCERS had assets of $ 3.369 billion held in trust for pension
benefit obligations.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
29
The Board of Retirement has chosen to employ external investment managers to invest
the fund’s assets. As of December 31, 2001 there are seventeen investment managers
investing eighteen portfolios. SCERS also has investments in five commingled real
estate funds. To assist the Board in carrying out its responsibilities, SCERS hires
professional investment consultants and legal counsel who, along with investment and
accounting staff, closely monitor the activity of the managers and assist the Board in
developing and implementing investment policy.
SCERS has a widely diversified portfolio designed to reduce risk and achieve a return of
greater than 8% over a period of five or more years. This objective is being achieved and
the fund is meeting its performance objective.
“ Directed brokerage” exists when a pension plan directs its investment managers to
execute a portion of their trades through a selected brokerage firm or list of brokers with
whom the plan has a directed brokerage agreement. A broker who is willing to
participate in a directed brokerage program allows the pension plan to recapture a portion
of the commissions directed to it by the plan’s money managers in exchange for an
assured order flow of business.
By participating in a directed brokerage program, a plan can either recapture a portion of
commissions as cash to the plan or defray research expenses that it would otherwise pay
out of its operating budget. In all cases, trades and transactions must be made so as to
obtain the best execution for the plan. Since the major transaction cost is not the
commission but other implicit risks in market movement, liquidity, etc., directed
brokerage and commission recapture are very minor components in the decision to
purchase or sell securities.
The main objective of a properly run directed brokerage program is to make the process
transparent and complementary to the money manager trading style and profile, as well as
avoid problems or conflicts in execution of a trade. Since most retirement plans do not
have portfolios of sufficient size to require a dedicated staff person, a number of firms
provide administration and implementation of directed brokerage programs. These firms
relieve the plan of the need to enter into multiple broker agreements. By using
" corresponding brokers," a plan can provide its money managers with enough broker
choice and flexibility to make the program effective.
The main means of determining whether a directed brokerage program is effective is to
review and evaluate the percentage of yearly commissions that a plan requires its
managers to direct, and the conversion ratio that the plan is able to negotiate with
brokers.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
30
Facts
In 1996 SCERS adopted a policy that directed its investment managers to negotiate for a
commission of three cents a share or less, as long as the manager can obtain “ best
execution.” Based on the information provided to the Board by its Chief Investment
Officer and its investment consultant, the Board of Retirement decided not to direct
managers to use discount brokers or directed brokerage.
At the time of adoption of the 1996 policy, SCERS’ Chief Investment Officer estimated
that the policy adopted could save approximately $ 150,000 annually. Reports received
by the Grand Jury indicate that commission costs have varied from 2.6 cents to 3.4 cents
per share for all managers.
In early 2001, after a review of trade costs and a report from SCERS’ investment
consultant on directed commissions and commission recapture, the Board initiated a
commission recapture program to lower trade costs further than its 1996 policy. The
Board considered and agreed to accept a proposal from State Street Bank to administer a
commission recapture program through its network of recapture brokers. State Street
Bank estimated that SCERS would earn approximately $ 250,000 annually from
commission recapture, given their trade volume.
After SCERS investment managers were contacted for an evaluation of their trade
volume through brokers in the State Street Bank network, a goal was set for each
manager for the first year. The overall objective was for domestic equity managers to
direct 25% of their trades, and for international equity managers to direct 20% of their
trades. SCERS is currently evaluating the first year of the program to determine its
effectiveness.
SCERS accepted a Letter of Understanding with State Street Bank dated February 27,
2001 establishing the Bank as the sole source to provide the administration of its directed
brokerage program and to be its correspondent broker. Further, State Street Bank is
SCERS’ Custodian Bank. SCERS initiated its program after State Street Bank offered to
lower its custody fees by $ 5,000, an estimated 50% a month, if State Street Bank was
selected to administer the program. SCERS began its directed brokerage program in
March 2001.
SCERS has been receiving commissions recaptured at a conversion of 1.428: 1 ( 70%) on
U. S. equities and 2: 1 ( 50%) on international equities. The directed commission target
( the percentage of total annual commissions to be “ directed”) for U. S. commissions is
30%, and the target for international commissio ns is 20%. In ten months of operation in
2001, SCERS had directed brokerage commissions of $ 203,000 in domestic equities and
$ 36,000 in international equities.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
31
Directed brokerage is not a new or emerging part of the securities industry. Other public
retirement systems have had programs in place since the early 1990s. The average
amount of commissions recaptured by SCERS in ten months of operation in 2001
amounted to approximately $ 287,000 per year. In addition to the recaptured
commissions, SCERS is saving $ 60,000 a year in reduced custody fees by participating in
a directed brokerage plan run by its Custodian Bank.
During initial discussions, the Grand Jury learned from SCERS the commission recapture
percentage for international equities was 50%. The industry averages provided by a
survey of directed brokers ranged between 60 and 62.5%. SCERS has subsequently
negotiated an increase in the commission recapture percentage from 50 to 60%, an
increase to the plan of 20%.
Findings
The manager target of 20% is low for directed trades of international securities compared
to conservative targets of other plans. A target of 30% is acceptable to money managers,
but it would be appropriate to raise the target by at least 5%.
It would be appropriate for SCERS to receive monthly money manager reports of
commissions independent of reports supplied by State Street Bank. Without independent
reports, it is difficult to audit the actual commissions and to reconcile variances that
continually occur between manager and brokers. This is especially true for international
trades.
The fact that State Street Bank sought a directed brokerage arrangement with SCERS
instead of SCERS proactively seeking to establish a directed brokerage program on its
own initiative, indicates a breakdown in the yearly review process. The arrangement
between SCERS and State Street Bank has resulted in savings of approximately $ 310,000
a year. Had a directed brokerage arrangement been in place from 1997, upon a one year
review from the 1996 Board decision, the savings to SCERS would have amounted to an
estimated $ 1,500,000.
It appears that SCERS’ lack of annual review of best practices in the industry resulted in
their not taking advantage of discounted commissions and directed brokerage. Directed
brokerage arrangements have the ability to reduce net commission costs to the lowest
level of discounted commission.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
32
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. The commission recapture rate for the SCERS directed brokerage program
should be evaluated annually.
Recommendation # 1. The Board of Retirement should adopt a policy requiring SCERS
to review annually the commission recapture percentage for securities, ensuring that the
plan maintains best practices in the industry.
Finding # 2. Although intended as a trial target during the first year of the directed
brokerage program, a 20% international target for money managers of the SCERS
directed brokerage program is substantially less than that acceptable to money managers.
Recommendation # 2. SCERS should readjust the international target for money
managers upward to 30% if possible, but to not less than 25%.
Finding # 3. It does not appear that SCERS is receiving monthly money manager reports
of commissions independently of reports supplied by State Street Bank.
Recommendation # 3. In order to maintain a proper audit trail and enable the
reconciliation of variances, SCERS should direct its money managers to supply monthly
reports of all commissions generated in a portfolio that identifies directed commissions.
Finding # 4. SCERS Board and management have not made regular reviews of directed
brokerage issues or surveyed best practices in the industry. This has resulted in SCERS
not achieving the significant savings available through a directed brokerage arrangement.
Recommendation # 4. The Board of Retirement should direct its Chief Investment
Officer to begin a practice of periodic attendance at directed brokerage conferences and
seminars, and follow up such attendance with in- service workshops for the Board and
SCERS management.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by Septembe r 30, 2002, from:
· Board of Retirement, Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
33
- blank page -
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
34
Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment
Programs in Sacramento County
Subject of Investigation
Court- ordered batterer treatment programs for domestic violence offenders, certified by
the Sacramento County Probation Department.
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury received two complaints regarding batterer treatment programs. The first
complaint alleged that the Probation Department is allowing a particular batterer
treatment program to operate under different standards than those required of all other
such programs in the County. The second complaint alleged that the Domestic Violence
Unit of the Public Defender’s office is directing clients to avoid certain programs which
are officially certified by the Probation Department.
Method of Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed key personnel in the County Probation
Department, the District Attorney’s office, the Public Defender’s office, program
providers, and several participants in batterer treatment programs. The Grand Jury also
reviewed the authorizing legislation for court- ordered batterer treatment programs,
Batterer Treatment Provider Standards implemented by the County Probation
Department, the Certification and Renewal checklist used by the Sacramento County
Probation Department, and other documents relating to batterer treatment programs.
Grand Jurors also made unannounced visits to several certified programs and, with
permission of the participants, attended a two- hour class at each site.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
35
Background
California Penal Code Section 1203.097 provides that persons convicted of domestic
violence crimes and sentenced to formal probation are required to participate in a fifty-two
week batterer treatment program. Section 1203.097 establishes specific requirements
for training, staff, the number and duration of sessions per week, and absence and
payment policies. Successful completion of the fifty- two week program and payment of
fees are conditions of probation. Failure to complete the program is a violation of
probation and results in the issuance of an arrest warrant.
The goal of batterer treatment programs, as stated in Section 1203.097, “ shall be to stop
domestic violence,” and county probation departments are given “ sole authority to
approve the issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of approval and to cease new
enrollments or referrals to a Batterer’s program . . . ”
In response to this mandate, the Sacramento County Probation Department established
Batterer Treatment Provider Standards for these programs. The Provider Standards also
include a fee schedule set by the Superior Court, based on ability to pay, which all
certified programs are required to use. The sliding scale ranges from $ 0 up to $ 45 per
class, and fees may change over the fifty- two weeks of the program as the income levels
of participants fluctuate.
Once a defendant is convicted of a domestic violence crime and placed on formal
probation, he or she is required to report to the Probation Department. Penal Code
Section 1203.097 provides that the Department “ shall determine which batterer’s
program would be appropriate for the defendant,” and a probation officer shares the list
of “ certified” providers in the county with the probationer and notifies him or her to
enroll. Certified programs have met all requirements of the Probation Department, and
have been placed on an official list.
Facts
Several interviews with providers and Probation Department personnel established that
the Domestic Violence Unit in the Public Defender’s office often directs defendants to
certain programs on the certified list and away from others. The Public Defender
attorney interviewed expressed that attorneys in the unit have the right to give advice to
clients concerning such a choice, that advice to clients is an attorney’s prerogative, and is
based on problems other clients have had with certain programs. The attorney had never
visited any of the certified programs. Probation Department personnel indicated their
awareness of this problem and stated that they have been unsuccessful in resolving it.
Grand Jurors were told by the former director of a discontinued domestic violence
batterer treatment program that this practice of directing clients to certain programs and
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
36
away from others was the main factor leading to reduced numbers of participants and
ultimate closure of that program.
Penal Code Section 1203.097 mandates that “ in making referrals of indigent defendants
to approved batterer’s programs, the probation department shall apportion these referrals
evenly among the approved programs.” The practice of the Public Defender’s office in
directing clients to certain programs makes it difficult for the Probation Department to
ensure that indigent clients are spread evenly among the certified programs. Although
the Public Defender’s office attorney stated that advice regarding programs was not a
binding referral, providers interviewed commented that advice from an attorney to a
client is taken very seriously and often results in defendants selecting programs based on
that advice.
Grand Jurors were informed by a variety of sources that the intent of the law is to ensure
that no program has an inordinate number of non- paying clients that might jeopardize its
solvency. Penal Code Section 1203.097 provides that certified programs “ . . . shall allow
up to 10% of the total Probation/ Court referrals per group as indigent, but no program
shall be required to maintain more unless stip ulated by the program.” This mandate is
difficult to achieve if the Probation Department lacks control over referrals.
The Probation Department currently has twelve certified batterer treatment program
providers, and has succeeded in obtaining a good geographical distribution around the
county. Two of the twelve were certified as recently as April 2002.
One certified program, operated through the Grant Joint Union High School District’s
Adult Education Program, is not required by the Probation Department to adhere to the
fee schedule adopted by the Superior Court, and charges a flat $ 10 fee to all participants.
According to Grant District personnel, the program is an authorized Adult Education
class and the District is therefore able to collect Average Daily Attendance ( ADA) funds
to supplement its batterer treatment program fees. Participants in the Grant District’s
program who are indigent may have the $ 10 fee waived if they sign up for an additional
adult education class.
Members of the Grand Jury were told that Grant District’s program was put in place in
response to a need expressed by the courts for a more economical program. However, a
number of providers are concerned that not all providers are being held to the same
standard of payment. They rely on referrals of court- ordered offenders to stay in
business. These providers believe that a “ level playing field” must be maintained and
client referrals distributed throughout the area to ensure the continuance of an appropriate
number of programs.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
37
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. The Probation Department does not have total control of the referral process
for batterer treatment programs in Sacramento County, as assigned by Penal Code
Section 1203.097. The Public Defender’s office has assumed a role in advising clients to
enroll in certain programs and to avoid others.
Recommendation # 1. The Probation Department should assume total control of the
referral process. The Public Defender’s office should stop advising its clients to enroll in
specific batterer treatment programs and to avoid others. The Public Defender’s office
should refer specific problems identified with certain providers to the Probation
Department, which has authority to monitor programs and ensure compliance with
standards.
Finding # 2. The Probation Department is allowing one of its certified batterer treatment
program providers to be in noncompliance with its prescribed standards and fee schedules
in violation of Penal Code Section 1203.097.
Recommendation # 2. The Probation Department should immediately remedy this
violation, and require all batterer treatment programs to comply with the approved
standards and fee schedules.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:
· Public Defender, Sacramento County Public Defender’s Office:
Finding and Recommendation # 1
· Chief Probation Officer, Sacramento County Probation Department:
Findings # 1 and 2 and Recommendations # 1 and 2
Grand Juror Vicki Cody recused herself from any participation in the investigation,
discussion, preparation, editing and approval of this report.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
38
Elk Grove Unified School District Fails
Fiduciary Responsibilities
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury received a complaint alleging that the Elk Grove Unified School District
paid more than twice the fair market value for a property located at the intersection of
Bond and Bradshaw Roads.
Method of Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the District Superintendent and members of his
staff, the Elk Grove Unified School District Board President, the complainants and other
interested parties. Because of the reluctance of some witnesses to appear before the
Grand Jury and the sensitive issues involved, the Grand Jury requested the assistance of
the Attorney General's office. Subpoenas were prepared and served, and on April 24,
2002, under questioning from a Deputy Attorney General, sworn testimony was received
from additional witnesses.
Background
The Elk Grove Unified School District ( District) encompasses an area that includes the
southern portion of the City of Sacramento as well as the recently incorporated City of
Elk Grove. The City of Elk Grove has experienced phenomenal growth over the past
decade, and for that reason the District has had to construct new schools at a rapid pace.
A four year school construction bond measure was passed by the State of California in
1998.
During the first several months of 2000, the District attempted to purchase property for
the construction of a mega- school to be located in the area of Elk Grove Florin and
Gerber Roads. The District met with considerable resistance from residents who objected
to a school in that area, and decided to look for property elsewhere. In order to take full
advantage of the bond issue the District had to move quickly in purchasing an alternate
site.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
39
Facts
One of the areas the District identified as a possible school site was in the vicinity of the
intersection of Bond and Bradshaw Roads. To locate available parcels of land in the
area, the District contacted several well- known land developers/ real estate brokers.
One land developer identified a 106 plus acre parcel that was for sale on the northwest
corner of Bond and Bradshaw Roads. The Grand Jury understands that neither the
previous owner of this land nor his real estate broker was aware of the District's interest
in purchasing land in the area. The land developer purchased the parcel of land for
$ 4,000,000 ( roughly $ 37,000 an acre).
Within days of entering into this purchase contract, the land developer informed the
District that he had property for sale at the corner of Bond and Bradshaw Roads. The
District entered into negotiations with the land developer for the purchase of this
property.
Two independent appraisals were commisssioned by the District to determine the fair
market value of the land. The first appraisal placed the value of the land at $ 4,350,000
( roughly $ 41,000 per acre). The second appraisal placed the value at $ 6,942,000
( roughly $ 65,000 an acre). Both appraisers used the same standards, but differed as to
which properties were to be compared. Although the two appraisals differed greatly,
District staff did not question the value set by the second appraisal. The Grand Jury was
told the difference between the two appraisals was probably caused by the volatility of
the real estate market during this time, July 2000.
According to testimony received by the Grand Jury, the District is required by law to base
its sales price negotiations on the appraised value of the land plus or minus 10%. The
Grand Jury also learned the District had the opportunity to negotiate a price with the
seller of the property based on either appraisal. The District accepted the higher appraisal
because it believed that it more accurately reflected the market value of the land. The
District purchased the property for $ 6,928,400 ( roughly $ 63,000 an acre).
The District admits that it was unaware the parcel had previously been for sale over a
year at approximately $ 4,000,000. The District staff did not canvass the area looking for
property for sale but instead turned to a select group of real estate agents and land
developers to locate desirable property. District staff also admitted that the original
broker for this piece of property was not among the group contacted. Had District staff
members responsible for property acquisition driven by the corner of the property, a short
distance from District Headquarters, they would have seen a large broker's sign
advertising the property. Also, had the District advertised its interest in purchasing
property in the area, the original broker for the property told the Grand Jury he would
have contacted the District.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
40
Finding and Recommendation
Finding # 1. District staff members exhibited a very careless attitude toward their fiscal
responsibilities when negotiating the purchase of property. The Grand Jury also
concluded that had the District been more diligent in its search for school property, it
might have purchased the property for a price closer to the lower appraised value of
$ 4,350,000. The Elk Grove Unified School District failed in its fiduciary responsiblity to
taxpayers in the purchase of property located at the intersection of Bond and Bradshaw
Roads. This failure resulted in a loss to taxpayers of approximately $ 2.4 million.
Recommendation # 1. The Elk Grove Unified School District should:
a. develop formal policies and procedures for the purchase of school site
property that protect financial interests of the taxpayers and eliminate the
appearance of favoritism to any landowner, land developer or real estate
agent;
b. publish in a newspaper of general record an official notice of any decision by
the District to establish a new school or seek a new site location. An offical
notice should also be delivered to the local Board of Realtors;
c. direct staff to use all available resources for the selection of property for
school construction including physical inspection of properties for sale within
the area of interest as well as Multiple Listing and newspaper ads.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the finding and
recommendation contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the
Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:
· Board of Education, Elk Grove Unified School District
The following grand jurors recused themselves from any particpation in the
investigation, discussion, preparation editing or approval of this report:
· Rhea Brunner
· A. Michael Koewler
· James M. Moose, Jr.
· Jimmie E. Ward
The Grand Jury Advisor Judge also recused himself from providing legal advice on
this report.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
41
- blank page -
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
42
Encroaching Land Use Imperils
Sacramento’s Airport System
Subject of Investigation
The present and prospective negative impact on current and future plans for operations,
growth and development of Mather Field and Sacramento International Airport by
encroaching land development.
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury has concerns about the negative impact to the Sacramento County
Airport System’s current and future plans for operations, growth and development at both
Sacramento International Airport and Mather Field as a result of planning, zoning and
land use decisions made by local political bodies.
Land use decisions made by the Board of Supervisors, County Planning Department and
Commission, the City of Sacramento Pla nning Department, and the City of Sacramento
may seriously affect both airports’ operational status as well as future expansion plans.
These decisions create a high probability for curfews, limited operations, restricted flight
paths and the necessity of obtaining operational variances for continuation or expansion
of air transit operations.
These decisions have and will continue to expose Sacramento International Airport,
Mather Field, and the taxpayers of Sacramento County to potential liability for damages
from lawsuits brought against airport operations at both facilities. This liability arises
from lawsuits that could be brought by surrounding commercial operations and
residential homeowners in new developments allowed to build in close proximity to
known and pre- existing major aviation facilities.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
43
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury has sought to determine the nature of the challenges and difficulties
facing the operation and development of both Sacramento International Airport and
Mather Field. The Grand Jury has also looked for effective solutions and remedies to
these difficult problems. Documents obtained from the Sacramento County Airport
System ( System) and the Sacramento County Planning Department were reviewed and
interviews conducted with members of these departments and the Sacramento City
Planning Department. The Grand Jury also searched out and reviewed media articles and
other publications available in the public record.
Background
" Since Sacramento International opened Oct. 29 1967, the 5,500- acre airport site has
been a virtual island in a vast sea of farmland. The $ 22 million airport, which drew
thousands of sightseers during the opening weekend, was the first new major commercial
airport west of the Mississippi that was built from the ground up.
The economic impact of the airport is enormous. A county report issued two years ago
revealed Sacramento International, Mather and Sacramento Executive airports pack a $ 2
billion- a- year economic punch - twice as much as a decade earlier.
‘ It's important for the airport and the areas around us to move forward in a
complementary way," said Robert Leonard, assistant director of airports.’"
- The Sacramento Bee, April 7, 2002-
Sacramento County has been in the enviable position of not having Sacramento
International Airport be a nuisance to the surrounding area. By design or good fortune
Sacramento International Airport has had the luxury of not having to operate under many
of the limiting restrictions that other major airports suffer such as curfews, limited flights,
restricted flight paths and the need for operational variances. Sacramento International
Airport has benefited from its strategic placement in a " sea of farmland." That benefit is
now rapidly eroding.
Similarly, Mather Field was protected from the encroachment of residential building and
development while a United States Air Force Base. In the late 1980s the Air Force
announced the closing of Mather Field with operations turned over to the County of
Sacramento. On May 5, 1995 the Board of Supervisors voted to promote development of
Mather Field as an air cargo facility. At that time there was minimal residential housing
in close proximity.
Operations at Mather Field decreased significantly after the Air Force ceased operations,
and the airfield has not operated near its peak capacity since that time. However,
operations have continually increased since the base started operations as a civilian
airfield. At present there are no operating limitations or restrictions. The chance of this
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
44
being the situation in the future is in serious doubt given the development and building
that has been allowed and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
One of the most important responsibilities of the System is to plan, develop and operate
the airports in ways that maximize the benefits to the six- county Sacramento region. To
carry out the objectives of the System, the Board of Supervisors has deemed it
appropriate to have an Airport Master Plan. One segment of this plan will address
Mather Field. Another segment will address Sacramento International. The Airport
Master Plan, when adopted, becomes an integral part of the County General Plan. The
current Airport Master Plan, under which the System operates, dates back to the early
1980s and does not include Mather Field. This master plan deals with the development
of airport projects and operations, and at this time provides the basis for land use
planning surrounding only Sacramento International. The revised Airport Master Plan
will address land uses surrounding both major airports.
The Board of Supervisors has responsibility for planning, zoning, development and land
use through its control of the General Plan. The Board of Supervisors controls any land
use, development, zoning, and construction project within the unincorporated areas of the
county. Within the Sacramento city limits, the City Council has independent and
exclusive control of planning, zoning, development and land use.
Facts
The State of California Department of Transportation’s method of handling land use
issues surrounding an airport provides for the creation of an Airport Land Use
Commission ( ALUC) made up of representatives from various governmental entities
( cities and counties) in the immediate area. The ALUC makes an evaluation based on
projected airport operations and produces a Comprehensive Land Use Plan ( CLUP).
The ALUC determines the noise contours surrounding the airport and establishes land
uses that are consistent with the airport’s measured noise contours averaged over a 24-
hour period. Under the state regulations, the ALUC is required to prepare a CLUP up to
a 65dB contour line. The 65dB contour line ( the outer perimeter of the CLUP) represents
points from the airport that will have an average noise level of no more than 65dB over a
24- hour period. The Airport Land Use Commission does not have any enforcement
ability for a CLUP. The adoption of the ALUC’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan rests
with the city or county’s governing body. At Sacramento Interna tional Airport, the
Board of Supervisors requested the CLUP outer perimeter be extended to the 60dB
contour line. This CLUP is the most progressive in the state. No residential construction
restrictions or airport protections result from the operation of Sacramento International
Airport beyond the current CLUP. At Mather Field, the Board of Supervisors adopted a
Mather Airfield Policy Area ( MAPA) larger than the governing CLUP that also extends
to a 60dB contour line.
Mather Field started its civilian use by having an Airport Layout Plan developed. Since
planners were unable to determine the future extent of the airfield’s use, the maximum
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
45
capacity was employed. An Airport Layout Plan is a basic requirement for permission to
operate. The plan was also needed in order to develop an Environmental Impact Report
and Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Unsure whether air cargo carriers would locate at
Mather Field, the System decided to delay the development of a master plan segment for
Mather Field.
In Comprehensive Land Use Plans that use noise contour lines for their perimeters,
measurements are averaged over a 24- hour period. Since an average is used, there can be
single events that can be significantly higher. Sound level is measured on a logarithmic
scale, and thus an event of 90dB is much higher than the current CLUP perimeter line of
60dB. The significance of this issue can be compared to living on a street that is the main
route to a hospital but ten blocks away. The disturbance of allowing ambulances to run
their sirens along the street may only occur four or five times a day so that the “ average
noise level” on the street is low. However, if these events occur routinely or exclusively
between 11 p. m. and 2 a. m., they could be termed a nuisance because of the time and
intensity of these “ single” events.
The operational spheres of influence ( 5- mile radius) of both Sacramento International
Airport and Mather Field, the area where noise from single events can easily exceed
60dB, are larger than the current CLUPs identify. Currently school sites are prohibited
from being located within a 2- mile radius of a major airport.
The operational sphere of influence ( 5- mile radius) of Mather Field ( the area where noise
from single events can exceed 60dB) is much larger than the current CLUP or MAPA
identifies. Currently school sites are prohibited from being located within a 2- mile radius
of a major airport. Although the Board of Supervisors has allowed the Village of
Zinfandel project to be approved for development and proceed as a residential housing
project, the Sacramento Bee reported:
" the Aeronautics Division at Caltrans denied permission to the developers to build
schools on the Zinfandel site because state airport safety experts concluded that aircraft
operations at Mather ‘ will present a safety hazard and subject the school sites to
disruptive noise levels.’ In a 1998 letter Caltrans outlines its objections – ‘ The entire
project site is within the base and crosswind legs of the traffic pattern. In these areas,
aircraft will be at lower altitudes, descending to land or climbing after departure; pilots
are making considerable aircraft configuration changes, air speed and power changes,
flap changes, etc. Pilot workloads in these areas of the traffic pattern require
maneuvering the aircraft while scanning for traffic and communicating with either air
traffic control or directly to other pilots........... aircraft operations at Mather will present
a safety hazard and subject the school sites to disruptive noise levels............ We
conducted a review of the entire project area and determined the Zinfandel Project Site
will not offer a suitable school site because of overflight hazard.’"
- Sacramento Bee 3/ 18/ 2000-
As stated previously, a new Airport Master Plan is being developed. The Board of
Supervisors and the Sacramento City Council have allowed plans and projects to be put
in place that encroach on the operational sphere of influence of both Sacramento
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
46
International and Mather Field. This encroachment is commonly called “ moving to the
nuisance.” This has allowed builders and developers to place residential housing in close
proximity to the airport.
In the Mather Field area, the Board of Supervisors has allowed residential encroachment
into the operational sphere of influence needed for full long- term growth and
development of the airport. In the absence of a master plan for Mather Field, the Board
of Supervisors could have declared a building and developmental moratorium until a
master plan was adopted. Instead the Board of Supervisors has allowed builders and
developers to foreclose future growth options at Mather Field. The Villages of Zinfandel
project is a prime example. Approval of the Villages of Zinfandel project prevented any
possibility of extending Mather Field's current northern runway and making it a Category
3 ( Cat 3) runway. Category 3 runways are capable of total instrument landings and
takeoffs in all kinds of weather, day or night. These runways require more safety
clearance on the ground.
The Grand Jury also learned that any proposed new runway to the south of the current
southern runway would be prevented from becoming a Cat 3 runway, if the proposed
developments immediately to the south, southeast and east are permitted. As a result of
the lack of definitive land use planning that addresses the needed infrastructure for the
airport, plans and projects have been put into place that " move to the nuisance" next to
and into the flight paths of Mather Field.
The Grand Jury learned tha t existing and planned developments are rapidly encroaching
on the operational sphere of influence at Sacramento International. The preferred site for
a new Category 3 runway directly to the east of the airport had previously been
preempted by a planning decision made many years ago. The Board of Supervisors
declined to revisit this issue and directed staff to find another location.
The concept of “ moving to a nuisance” has been routinely upheld in legal cases. Moving
to the nuisance is a situation where expanding land development and home building
slowly but steadily begins to move toward what is commonly held to be an obvious
nuisance such as a dairy, a land fill, an industrial plant or an airport. Unpleasant noises,
smells, fumes or health issues can be used to either shut down or curtail the operations of
the offending entity. It does not matter that homeowners knew of the location and nature
of the nuisance before they purchased. Airport defenses of " being there first" and " being
on notice" of airport operations have not been successful against plaintiff lawsuits for
monetary damages or specific relief i. e. curfews, limiting operation or forced removal of
the operation. Airports in particular have been subject to many restrictions relating from
lawsuits brought by landowners. San Diego’s Lindbergh Field has an 11: 30 p. m.
departure curfew. Orange County's John Wayne airport has similar restrictions. San Jose
airport has had lawsuits filed over “ nuisance” at each end of the runway that taken
together come close to $ 100 million in damages.
The Board of Supervisors has delayed adopting a master plan segment for Mather Field
while stating to the public the County’s intention to develop the airfield into a busy,
“ World Class” air cargo hub. These planning decisions encroached upon the planned
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
47
long- term operational sphere of influence of the airfield. These actions by the Board of
Supervisors were in direct conflict with the projected growth and development plans for
Mather Field as an air cargo hub. As a result, the air cargo operators have been operating
in a climate of business uncertainty on issues related to the airfield’s infrastructure and
future. This uncertainty has continued until recently when many of the infrastructure
improvements sought by major carriers were met. A major exception is the request for
two Cat 3 runways. The carriers cite accident potential and/ or regularly required
maintenance as the need for redundant runways to avoid flight diversions to another
airport. Currently there are no Cat 3 runways at Mather Field.
The Grand Jury is aware that there is in Sacramento County, as in most counties
everywhere, a persistent and unrelenting pressure for growth and development which
most political entities have been unable to resist. Pressure could force decisions to be
made that are in direct contradiction to planning and land use professionals expert
opinion and advice.
The Board of Supervisors and the City of Sacramento have consistently allowed
developers and residential builders to " move to the nuisance." The reluctance of the
Board of Supervisors to create a buffer zone around Mather Field beyond the current
CLUP has allowed builders and developers of residential housing projects to encroach on
the flight paths of runways to the east and southeast. Similarly, the City of Sacramento
and the Board of Supervisors have allowed new housing and planned development to the
south and east of Sacramento International that approach the existing CLUP perimeter.
The reluctance to create a buffer zone around the airports beyond the current CLUPs has
allowed developers to plan projects and homeowners to move into homes that suffer from
the nuisances of being located near a major aviation facility. New homeowners complain
of airport noise and threaten lawsuits because the responsible agencies have not required
a mandatory Grant of Avigation and Noise Easement.
A Grant of Avigation and Noise Easement is similar to utility company easements
contained in most residential deeds that allow a limited use of property by another. An
Avigation and Noise easement grants permission to use the airspace above the identified
property to the holder of the easement. An Avigation and Noise easement prevents the
landowner from suing the holder of the easement for nuisance and monetary damages
except in extreme and unusual cases.
The System developed maps ( see Figures 1 and 2) defining the expected noise contour
lines for Sacramento International Airport. These maps show the expected noise
contours at both 60dB and 55dB for the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. The 55dB
lines were projected to show the potential impact that may be considered as residential
development continues to encroach on the airport. The noise contour lines at 55dB for
2005 reach past Highway 99 at Elverta Road on the east, an area where there are
thousands of proposed houses being planned for construction, and past I- 80 at I- 5 on the
southeast, completely encompassing all the new residential construction permitted by the
City of Sacramento west of I- 5 and north of I- 80.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
48
For land uses within the noise contour of 65dB, the State of California has deemed the
following land uses to be incompatible:
· Residential dwellings
· Public and private schools
· Hospitals and convalescent homes
· Churches, synagogues, temples and other places of worship
In essence, the state has mandated that high concentrations of people are incompatible
with airport operations in an area encompassed by an expected sound level of 65dB.
Sacramento County has elected to extend this zone to include the 60dB level. The Grand
Jury learned from Airport System staff that this zone could soon be expanded to include
the 55dB level at Sacramento International. As the area around Mather Field continues to
develop, it would seem prudent to expect a similar extension to the 55dB level.
Figure 1- 60dB Contour Lines at Sacramento International Airport
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
49
Figure 2 – 55dB Contours at Sacramento International Airport
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
50
Findings & Recommendations
Finding # 1. The existing Airport Master Plan is over 20 years old and is currently being
revised.
Recommendation # 1. With regard to Sacramento International Airport, the Board of
Supervisors should:
a) expedite the revision and approval of the Airport Master Plan.
b) make the growth, development and operation of Sacramento International Airport
the highest planning, development, zoning and land use priority and objective for
the airport’s operational sphere of influence, a 5- mile radius of the airport.
c) show on the Airport Master Plan all future runways and operations planned
through 2035.
d) work with local cities and counties surrounding Sacramento International Airport
to prevent residential and commercial/ industrial encroachment into flight paths of
all current and planned runways.
e) provide planning for additional Category 3 runways.
f) enact and enforce changes needed in the General Plan to insure that no land use
decision will be approved that restricts, conflicts or interferes with Sacramento
International’s growth, development and operation.
Finding # 2. The Board of Supervisors did not include plans for Mather Field in the
Airport Master Plan or in the alternative did not impose a developmental moratorium
upon acquisition from the U. S. Air Force.
Recommendation # 2. With regard to Mather Field, the Board of Supervisors should:
a. expedite the development and approval of the Airport Master Plan incorporating
Mather Field.
b. make the growth, development and operation of Mather Field as a “ world class”
air cargo hub the highest planning, development, zoning and land use priority
within a 5- mile radius of the airfild.
c. include a requirement for two Category 3 runways.
d. enact and enforce changes needed in the General Plan to insure that no land use
decision will be approved or allowed to continue that restricts, conflicts or
interferes with Mather Field's growth, development and operation.
Finding # 3. There are currently no plans by the Board of Supervisors and the City of
Sacramento to prevent residential construction from encroaching into the operational
sphere of influence of either Mather Field or Sacramento International airports.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
51
The Grand Jury believes it is therefore logical, relevant and instructive to consider the
evaluations and determinations by state safety experts of what is considered safety and
overflight hazards and disruptive noise levels when deciding on appropriate land uses. If
prohibiting a school site within a 2- mile radius of an airport is required by the state, and
children are at school only part of the day, it only seems logical that allowing residential
construction within that zone where parents and children would live 24- hours a day,
seven days a week is also inadvisable and inappropriate for exactly the same reasons.
Recommendation # 3.
a. The Board of Supervisors should require mandatory Grants of Avigation and
Noise Easements in favor of the Sacramento County Airport System, Sacramento
County and the City of Sacramento be obtained and required of anyone issued a
permit or given permission to build within the sphere of influence ( 5- mile radius)
of either airport.
b. The Board of Supervisors and/ or Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)
should require and make it a mandatory condition that a Grant of Avigation and
Noise Easement be granted to Sacramento County Airport System and
Sacramento County for any property located within a 5- mile radius of Sacramento
International Airport or Mather Field prior to any incorporation of a new city or
annexation of land by an existing city.
c. That a requirement for disclosure of these easements be included in any property
transfer, lease or other use within the operational sphere of influence of both
airports.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002, from:
· Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
· Sacramento City Council
· Director, Sacramento County Airport System
· LAFCO: Finding and Recommendation # 3
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
52
Folsom Sewage Spills Continue
Subject of Investigation
Investigation into the cause and responsibility for a series of sewage spills in the City of
Folsom between 1995 and 2000.
Reason for Investigation
The pollution involved the American River and some of its tributaries. The Grand Jury
felt that it was appropriate to investigate because there is danger of environmental
damage to this source of drinking water, and to this area of recreation for a large number
of Sacramento County residents.
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed management staff and a consultant to the City of Folsom,
Department of Public Works; representatives of the State of California, Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board ( CVRWQCB); representatives of the Sacramento
Regional County Sanitation District ( SRCSD); and members of the Save the American
River Association ( SARA). Members of the Grand Jury also reviewed press reports
concerning the spills and attended Folsom City Council meetings and CVRWQCB
meetings.
Background
In the late 1980s the Folsom City Council adopted a general plan that allowed Folsom to
grow to approximately 70,000 residents by 2010. That general plan is still in place today.
By 1991- 1992 the demand for housing accelerated to meet the needs of new business
moving to Folsom. Recently, the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)
granted to Folsom “ sphere of influence” designation to acreage south of Highway 50.
This sphere of influence designation gives the Folsom City Council an important voice in
the use and development of this property. It will eventually lead to the annexation of the
property and expansion of the city borders. The Grand Jury is unaware of any plans the
Council has for this property.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
53
In 1995 the first of a series of sewage spills occurred. Subsequent studies conducted by
independent consultants contracted by the City of Folsom demonstrated the increased risk
for spills if needed maintenance and repair were not provided. The city administration
and city council failed to increase the maintenance and repair of its system but rather
relied on increased flow capacity being installed by the SRCSD to solve the problem.
This increased flow capacity was not provided until two weeks after the January 2000
spill.
Facts
The amount and frequency of sewage spills in Folsom has been well documented by
public agencies as well as the press. Between 1995 and January 2000 there were at least
five sewage spills from the City of Folsom that flowed into tributaries of the American
River. These include the 650,000- gallon spill in 1997 and a 700,000- gallon spill in
January 2000. This latest event combined with the history of a number of lesser spills
culminated in the state CVRWQCB fining the City of Folsom $ 700,000 for the January
2000 spill. In addition, in late spring of 2000, the CVRWQCB issued a Cleanup and
Abatement Order to the City. Subsequently, on March 1, 2002, the CVRWQCB
approved the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order and a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ( NPDES) permit. The Cease and Desist Order requires the City of
Folsom to put in place a system that repairs, replaces and monitors the Folsom sanitary
sewage collection system. It also requires Folsom to report periodically to the Regional
Water Quality Control Board the progress it is making towards updating the sewer
system. The Cease and Desist Order specifies April 2009 as the final date for the
elimination of all sanitary sewer overflows.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding # 1. The City of Folsom is largely respons ible for the sewage spills that occurred
from 1995 to 2000 including the January 2000 spill that resulted in a $ 700,000 fine.
Recommendation # 1. The City of Folsom should fully comply with the NPDES permit
and the Cease and Desist Order issued by the Cent ral Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board. By readily accepting the actions the permit and order requires, the City of
Folsom can demonstrate to its residents and those who live downstream that Folsom is
committed to the best sewer system possible. These actions would also demonstrate
leadership in preventing damage to the surrounding environment.
Finding # 2. The City of Folsom has been granted “ sphere of influence” to acreage south
of Highway 50 by LAFCO.
Recommendation # 2. In view of the history of aggressive growth allowed by the City
of Folsom, no action should be taken by the current city council or future city councils to
annex the land south of Highway 50.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
54
This recommendation should remain in effect until the expiration and completion of the
Cease and Desist Order by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in April 2009.
Should the City of Folsom want to expedite development south of Highway 50, it should
fulfill the requirements of the Cease and Desist Order earlier than April 2009.
Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of
the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:
· Director of Public Works, City of Folsom
· Folsom City Council
Grand Juror James M. Moose, Jr. recused himself from any participation in the
investigation, discussion, preparation, editing, or approval of the report.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
55
- blank page -
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
56
Status of Volunteer Firefighters Serving
as Members of the Board of Directors of
the Wilton Fire Protection District
Subject of Investigation
Wilton Fire Protection District.
Reason for Investigation
The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding possible violations of the Health and
Safety Code, the Brown Act ( Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.), and other
provisions of the Government Code.
Method of Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, the Chairman of the Wilton
Fire Protection District Board of Directors, and the Sacramento County Counsel, who is
the Grand Jury's legal adviser. A review was also made of the District Board of
Directors’ meeting minutes and the Wilton Fire Protection Policy and Procedure Manual.
Background
The Wilton Fire Protection District is a special district formed under Health and Safety
Code Sections 13800 et seq. The purpose of the District is to respond to all reported
emergencies in the community of Wilton and surrounding area.
A Board of Directors, consisting of five members, is responsible for the management of
the District. The citizens of the community elect all members of the Board. The District
has approximately 42 staff, of whom 35 are community volunteers trained to respond to
emergencies.
Volunteers are paid $ 8.00 per call plus $ 8.00 for any mandatory drill or training.
Changes in salary are approved by the Wilton Fire Protection District’s Board of
Directors.
Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002
57
Facts
Three of the directors were also employed as volunteer firefighters at the time of this
complaint. One has since resigned from the Board, but continues to work as a volunteer
firefighter.
Government Code Sections 1090 through 1098 prohibit public officers from being
financially interested in contracts made by them in their official capacity. The provisions
apply to members of the Legislature, and to state, county, district, ju